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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/11/2020 à 20:57, Joel M. Halpern a écrit :
> Jorid, from what has been said, some ISPs do not use DHCPv6.  that's 
> fair.  We actually told them they did not have to.
> So I do not think it is fair or appropriate to claim that to solve the 
> delegation problem they must use DHCPv6.
> 
>      What is not clear to me is why solving the delegation problem 
> requires extending the allocation boundary past /64.  The draft on the 
> v6ops agenda simply asserts that it is necessary.

I dont think we propose to extend the allocation boundary past /64.

I think we propose a solution in which an operator might still 
'allocate' a /64 to smartphones but the smartphones might 'allocate' a 
/65 to the ones that smartphone so wants.  With SLAAC.

Alex

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 11/8/2020 2:46 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> There are many ISPs offering IPv6. I never hear of any that doesn't 
>> use DHCPv6-PD to allocate /48, /56, some do /60, very few do /64 and 
>> we shall train them to understand that this is incorrect.
>>
>> There is no technical neither cost reason (in terms of RIRs cost for 
>> getting a bigger IPv6 block), to allocate smaller prefixes for 
>> customers. The only reason they some time to /56 instead of /48 is 
>> "marketing" to differentiate business from residential customers. 
>> Nothing else.
>>
>> Many ISPs do persistent prefixes.
>>
>> Again, see RIPE-690 and 
>> https://indico.uknof.org.uk/event/41/contributions/542/attachments/712/866/bcop-ipv6-prefix-v9.pdf 
>> (look for the survey slides at the 2nd part).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>>
>> El 7/11/20 4:24, "ipv6 en nombre de Michael Richardson" 
>> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>>
>>
>>      Mark Smith <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT 
>> consulting )
>>                 Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>      --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>      IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>      [e-mail]
>>      Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>      --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of 
>> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you 
>> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be 
>> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original 
>> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------