Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

On Jun 3, 2017 2:16 PM, "Simon Hobson" <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

> I'm not going to use my phone as a router into
> my enterprise network, I don't see any reason to have it delegate some
> complex network hierarchy. We need the ability to tether a small
> number of devices, anything more than we are talking about a different
> type of device.

OK, what about a situation where something that looks like a phone to the
network, but happens to not have much by way of telephony bits built into
it, is being used ? It really doesn't change the discussion that the box is
black, has no display, and is called a router - it's still doing exactly
the same thing as a phone doing tethering for downstream devices.

But that does change the discussion significantly. Those are different
devices, not smart phone I'm using to type this message. This does not need
a /64 assignment, I will never use it for any more than tethering a few
devices. What I do need is seamless mobility for my applications which is a
problem IPv6 should be able to help solve.

And at work, we have customers doing just that - connecting an entire
network (OK, not complex network) to the internet either as a temporary
measure until their proper connection gets installed, or in some cases as a
permanent measure as it's not worth getting a fibre circuit installed for a
temporary site (where temporary is typically in the order of 2-4 years for
a civil engineering project).

That's anecdotal. For every case like that, how many user devices are out
there that don't even turn tethering ever and are only using one address,
much less need 2**64 of them?

Thanks,
Tom

Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I guess the none technical side are a lost case for most IETF'ers.

In reality the world is run by non-technical people - often derogatorily
referred to as bean counters. While not applicable here, I firmly believe
that one of the reasons for the slow adoption of IPv6 is it's perceived
complexity (and hence cost) on the part of the bean counters who ultimately
must sign off on any project in a business.

> Not to mention that we remove one of the thing so many I've spoken to
over the years think is great - the standard LAN size.

I'm inclined to agree there.
At first I had to admit that I just couldn't bring myself to think
positively about what seems to be profligate wastage of address space -
having "cut my teeth" with IPv4 addressing. Now I'm getting my head around
it though it's taking some effort to adjust in many ways.
As a thought, will there be discussions at some point in the future when it
turns out that some vendors have decided that nothing other than a /64
exists and so their kit doesn't support (say) a /56 ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------