IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: the race to the bottom problem

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 07 November 2020 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 5D12B3A00E3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 19:24:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 8am5DsNBykcm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 19:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FA6F3A00D9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 19:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D199238C7D; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:24:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7M_qfFwi_dnQ; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:24:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5454638C7C; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:24:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C1BE7; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:23:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: the race to the bottom problem
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2zQqw9prXFnVGsH3U2MWCe12L442Fk8cApMc0FbgkG6NA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <160409741426.1448.16934303750885888002@ietfa.amsl.com> <3c1c3ab5-5726-b141-e7ed-618984bbbdb1@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1zoZpZNjb54rEys4+49H3vpebZW2g9JbO1_58eR+WnQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3L7kz=cWu8s3X=djVf4MCwewzbEgx09TWaKzCULCjYUQ@mail.gmail.com> <9A9CE8E7-3552-4FD8-A50E-1BDCA2CB813F@employees.org> <CABNhwV0LxM7EuKo2wNtVacjewsVqdhrmSiVBmB_EL-mqJYdU3A@mail.gmail.com> <CD9F9F09-2CBC-4A72-99C0-4A9A470357ED@employees.org> <9e787ed0-a221-e413-e030-ac2553dffc8e@gmail.com> <a21c9447-730b-e2c0-81f6-46deda57f507@gmail.com> <f4635fa9-45ca-f7ec-40a2-41764e1ca74f@si6networks.com> <905bcc26-a223-53d0-6675-c35579b9a8be@gmail.com> <AAE75F7F-F8DF-4B7F-9C50-3D6C91544997@ciena.com> <2b59b2de-3597-8d35-374d-75e9b10d4d83@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zUvDE2ZSCnZa_525Hj7OthhEoDGZcd0D9xxZVW3D8aeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTSSe+WaO-GFX5erjCVN27SLh=P6YN5uDBnCN7Wjcfb4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zQqw9prXFnVGsH3U2MWCe12L442Fk8cApMc0FbgkG6NA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 22:23:56 -0500
Message-ID: <26337.1604719436@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9klIvBnlVejp3upw-XVjrSsAd90>
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: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 03:24:00 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Why are the isps not giving more than one 64 ?
    >>
    >> Is it because the ietf made it hard and dhcp-pd is unworkable ,

    > There are multiple production residential deployments of DHCPv6-PD.

    > I worked on one that was deployed in 2010. I then used it for the next
    > 8 years, and only moved away to another provider (and employer) where
    > it is in beta.

That's much cool.
It's very useful to hear of such successes!

A question: was it easy to assign static subnets to the customers?

My ISP initially statically routed my /56 to me, and then when they turned on
PD, they now send me three subnets. One statically, and apparently two by
DHCPv6-PD which they say they can't turn off/fix.  Very weird.
Well.... they aren't present today.

    > Telstra here in Australia have also been deploying it for a number of
    > years in production.

    > Sky in the UK have deployed PD to 5 million subscribers.

    > PD is very workable, and a number of people have made it work.

Maybe RIPE would do a survey to understand what has these things so
successful so that others can repeat it!

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email