Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 09 November 2020 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 CD7293A0C1F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:54:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 SbYf-G3iSOrQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD143A0846 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:54:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kcCJ1-0000FMC; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 19:54:19 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kcCJ1-0000FMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <1258a91f37274343a5d6b8f5ebf14708@boeing.com> <350919b2-fe50-a3b8-3f15-4ce32124d495@gmail.com> <3377F3AE-BDFE-4AAC-ACA3-0F3D1A4D8854@thehobsons.co.uk> <SN6PR02MB4512DE7BF31D8758BE15D899C3EA0@SN6PR02MB4512.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:38:55 +0000 ." <SN6PR02MB4512DE7BF31D8758BE15D899C3EA0@SN6PR02MB4512.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 19:54:18 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JhlaZF6JG8PjcCnKNPZC63JNgCo>
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: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 18:54:30 -0000

> Please don't take this personally, but, IMO, this is exactly the
> attitude that has brought us to this point. The IETF participants
> think IETF is in a position to dictate and think they know better
> how to operate and deploy a network than the operators. 

To turn this around. There is at the moment no draft from the mobile world
on how they are going to provide mobile devices with prefixes that are 
shorter than 64 bits.

Instead, the expectation in this discussion is every vendor of every device in
the world has to change the device to accommodate the failure of the
mobile world to provide suitable prefixes. This also means that every 
installed device has to get an upgrade or become obsolete.

This is how operators run a substandard network and push to cost to everybody
else.

Of course, lots of operators like to run a network on the cheap. But few are
in a position to let the rest of the world pay the cost.