Extending a /64

otroan@employees.org Sun, 08 November 2020 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583F53A0658 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 02:25:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCF6P95z6a44 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 02:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18C743A0657 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 02:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (201.51-175-101.customer.lyse.net [51.175.101.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 275ED4E11A66 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 10:25:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6384387C53 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 11:25:28 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Extending a /64
Message-Id: <005ECBB3-088B-4363-BB53-8D4AD25CA3D2@employees.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 11:25:27 +0100
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/93JIBFDAqRWoGP2RlrGyCXKU6r8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 10:25:33 -0000

Starting a new thread.

A problem described in variable-slaac is:

"It should be possible to extend an end-user network that is only assigned a /64"

I believe that is a problem worth looking at.
This problem is not only restricted to the mobile access case, think connecting a host with VMs to a link.

The address delegation to a site problem is intertwined with the autonomous networking problem of the site itself. The IETF solution is DHCPv6 PD + HNCP. The expectation of addressing of a network is that the addresses are long-lived.

There are many potentional solutions:

a1) ask the network operator for more address space.
a2) change provider
a3) introduce government regulation
b1) steal the uplink /64 (64share)
b2) steal multiple /64s from uplink
c) overlay. use e.g. LISP to tunnel across the access ISP to connect to an ISP that support multi-homing and larger address space.
d) MultiLink Subnet Routing. I.e. let a single /64 span multiple links. draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless, draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets
e) NAT
f) P2P Ethernet. Hosts are not on the same physical link, so let's stop pretending they are. A consequence of that is that links don't need subnets. Only assign addresses to hosts. draft-troan-6man-p2p-ethernet-00
g) extend the /64 bit boundary. HNCP implementations do /80s I think (forces DHCP for address assignment)


Requirements:
R-1: Permissionless. Not require an action on the network operator
R-2: Arbitrary topology
R-3: Long-lived address assignments
R-4: Support bad operational practice: flash renumbering / ephemeral addressing


Is there interest to work on this problem?
If so, suggestions for next steps?

Best regards,
Ole (without any particular hat on)