Re: the race to the bottom problem

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

The reason I asked about DHCP being broken is that some of the earlier 
messages in the thread seemed (and I may have been misreading) to say 
"some operators can't use DHCPv6" rather than "some operators do not 
want to use DHCP, including almost all mobile operators".  The former 
statement is one where we as the IETF could look at the problems and see 
if there was something to fix.  The later statement is a not 
unreasonable policy statement that I am now trying to work with.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/8/2020 3:57 PM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 08/11/2020 à 02:08, Joel M. Halpern a écrit :
>> I follow most of your reasoning, but I am missing on critical step.
>> Can you please explain how / why / in what fashion DHCPv6 pd is broken?
> 
> Joel,
> 
> Allow me a question: I do not know why you ask the question of DHCPv6-PD 
> brokenness in this context?
> 
> The race to the bottom problem might appear if the IID length is 
> permitted to be of length 63.  Today 63, tomorrow 62, and so on down to 
> the bottom.
> 
> That problem is on SLAAC, not on DHCP.
> 
> I would like a solution to the problem of mobile hotspots by using SLAAC 
> with IID 63 on the Ethernet interface.  It's not a DHCP problem.  It's 
> not an operator problem (some).
> 
> Bringing DHCPv6-PD in the figure is of no relevance, here, I think.
> 
> One cant expect mobile operators to use DHCPv6-PD, and, even if they 
> did, there would still be race to the bottom problems.  They could use 
> DHCPv6-PD as well to hand out /63 today, /64 tomorrow, /65 later, and so 
> on down to the bottom.
> 
> THat is why I ask the above.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> Just saying ~mobile operators chose not to use it~ does not give us 
>> any information to judge what solutions are likely to be workable.
>>
>> I will also note that even if mobile operators would have good reason 
>> to use a longer prefix system, and would not abuse it, I am not so 
>> sure the same can be said about fixed operators.  If your claim is 
>> that DHCPv6 PD is broken for them too, then explaining why and how 
>> becomes more important for us to understand the situation.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 11/7/2020 8:00 PM, Ca By wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 4:00 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I am not sure what data you are looking for Nick.
>>>     By definition, no one complying with the RFCs is giving out prefixes
>>>     longer than /64.
>>>     By observation, folks are giving out /64s, when we would prefer they
>>>     gave out /56 or even shorter.
>>>     Given that there are policy statements from various groups about 
>>> giving
>>>     out shorter, adn those are being ignored, something is causing that.
>>>     There may be multiple causes.
>>>
>>>     History does tell us that ISPs give out very long prefixes even when
>>>     they do not need to.
>>>
>>>     Since there appears to be know way to observe a trend past /64, 
>>> we have
>>>     to look to history and analogy for data.  History is data.  We can
>>>     argue
>>>     about whether it is relevant data.  But it is all the data we 
>>> have on
>>>     the topic.
>>>
>>>
>>> History tells us that ipv4 was scarce so people conserved addresses.
>>>
>>> Operators have unlearend that lesson but the ietf has not. And so, 
>>> ietf people think operators are trying conserve addresses, this is 
>>> not true. Stop saying it. Stop saying “race to the bottom”, it does 
>>> not mean anything.
>>>
>>> The current and future issue is that the mechanics of providing n 
>>> number of /64 is broken, dhcp pd is not being deployed in
>>> Mobile. Accept reality. Mobile devices dont support it. Mobile 
>>> networks dont deploy it.
>>>
>>> So, the problem statement in mobile is - how do we better make use of 
>>> the /64 that is provided or get more /64s in an effective way
>>>
>>> No, yelling at operators and making punitive standards will not help.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Yours,
>>>     Joel
>>>
>>>     On 11/7/2020 6:56 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>>      > Mark Smith wrote on 07/11/2020 23:41:
>>>      >> They're not assumptions if you have first hand experience of the
>>>      >> history of the rise of IPv4 address conservation measures, 
>>> and can
>>>      >> remember what IPv4 addressing practices and mindsets were before
>>>     IPv4
>>>      >> addresses became precious.
>>>      >
>>>      > btdt, thanks.
>>>      >
>>>      >> The address conservation mindset is even more distinct and
>>>      >> distinguishable when you've actually taught it through teaching
>>>     IPv4
>>>      >> VLSM in the mid 90s.
>>>      >
>>>      > this looks very much like an appeal to authority.  We're better
>>>     than this.
>>>      >
>>>      > So once again, let's try to keep the topic about actual data
>>>     concerning
>>>      > ipv6 and this "race to the bottom" as it relates to ipv6.
>>>      >
>>>      > Nick
>>>      >
>>>      > 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>      > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      > Administrative Requests:
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>>>      > 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------