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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 03/06/2017 à 02:35, Mark Andrews a écrit :
>
> In message <[e-mail]>,
> Brian Hab erman writes:
>> Hi Bert,
>>
>> On 6/2/17 4:03 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Templin, Fred L
>>>
>>>> My meaning was for the ISP to give the cell phone or home
>>>> gateway a /64, then let the cell phone/ home gateway subnet the
>>>> /64 to the IoT devices within the subnetwork it provides as it
>>>> sees fit.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I have to make an important correction:
>>>
>>> Presumably, using some sort of internal address format, also /64,
>>> such
>> as privacy addresses? Yes, true, but ...
>>
>> I interpreted Fred's proposal as:
>>
>> 1. ISP gives the phone a /64
>
> The ISP could give each phone a /48.

Ask an operator, he'd say /56 instead of /48, if at all.  And it would 
be a non-operational specific purpose trial.

Ask another operator, he'd say '64share' everywhere, despite IETF saying 
it's INFORMATIONAL.

Ask an end-user, he'd say operators are difficult, better do NAT.

Alex

> There is NOTHING stopping the ISP giving a /48 today.  IPv6 is sized
> to allow this.  When you stop trying to hand out the minimum and
> start handing out reasonable quantities of subnets the so called
> problems go away.
>
>> 2. The phone delegates longer prefixes to the devices behind it
>> from the /64
>
> The phone then hands out /64's to devices behind it on demand.
>
>> 3. The ISP router has a single /64 route that points to the phone
>
> The ISP's router has a single /48 that points to the phone.
>
>> Regards, Brian
>