IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

otroan@employees.org Tue, 03 November 2020 09:02 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 7D7543A0A3B; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 01:02:18 -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 Hugzjoz6lMF2; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 01:02:17 -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 5CAF63A0A35; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 01:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:fd7d:1bf5:ea5f:f594]) (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 1BC7E4E11AC8; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 09:02:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EBF43087F0; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:02:13 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3L7kz=cWu8s3X=djVf4MCwewzbEgx09TWaKzCULCjYUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 10:02:12 +0100
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9A9CE8E7-3552-4FD8-A50E-1BDCA2CB813F@employees.org>
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>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GB8edPKo9Y4vrHkohiAcfZitBdo>
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 09:02:19 -0000

> With 5G network slicing will become a formidable part of the paradigm shift from shared resources to network resource isolation at the radio and RAN layers.  The use case for being able to provide critical segmentation for network slices makes it an industry imperative to be able support variable IID lengths with slaac as all 5G deployments worldwide will be IPv6 only from the start.

You'd likely find most people on this group thinking of 5G as just "more of the same"; access to the Internet.
At least I struggled understanding what there is about 5G that would require a change in IPv6 addressing models.

Are there any of the problems/use-cases that cannot be solved by assigning a shorter prefix than /64 to the end-user networks?

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email