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

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:52 AM Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:27 PM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to see why this draft is needed anyway. All that is needed
>>
>>> is to remove the "64 bit" statement from the addressing architecture,
>>> which the WG has consistently failed to reach consensus about.
>>>
>>
>>     Gyan>  This topic has come up many times over the years in heated
>> debate and this is another instance of that.  Agreed.  However, what makes
>> this instance different is that we have a major problem to be solved with
>> 4G  &  now as 5G is rolled out, segmentation is of utmost importance.  I
>> think in the past we have not had a major problem to be solved and so this
>> change being proposed did not gain traction,  but now as 5G becomes the
>> "norm" as it will compete directly with broadband that customers will start
>> using 5G in SOHO as well as other environments.   This is a major issue
>> that has come up with the ramp up for 5G IPv6 only deployments.
>>
>
> There is already a solution to this: use DHCPv6 PD on 5G networks. It's
> been supported since 3GPP release 10 several years ago.
>

Has any mobile provider deployed dhcpv6 pd?

Perhaps the mobile providers have seen what an operational nightmare dhcpv6
pd is and... are like nope.

I am in favor of the ietf opening their eyes to a better solution.

Rfc7278 is universally deployed because it is easy.

Can we do better (more /64s) and easy ?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>