Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 7CB4A1295B0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:27:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 3hvzekEX2jsP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FD16129593 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v22IRRru007618; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:27:27 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8264F202490; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:27:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7575F2022F8; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:27:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v22IRRnc015279; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:27:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170302105206.15fc3886@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAKD1Yr2AYaAQMuGZiKXYwKdgz1dzKs5fc5bm7hQjpuq3O_V8gQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170302121104.36ddda4e@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAKD1Yr1cNihxMVHjY2j7mcCNU2TE0X6-0p2mDNCBVVUcUbU20Q@mail.gmail.com> <20170302153611.36506f85@envy> <CAKD1Yr1SbdE-i-oGhi2kEFBWTOi_-FzgVdMYkMWjCEtw0MRRMg@mail.gmail.com> <ee3b73b1-64fd-6fef-bc0a-53b325f0bcfd@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021902010.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <efe2504e-198c-36ce-c79f-be1886e5d031@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:27:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021902010.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LXZwCQtW80s1HmalqKcrSSd9Xi4>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 18:27:30 -0000


Le 02/03/2017 à 19:05, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>> I speculate, but I couldn't imagine a cellular operator dedicating
>> a /40, i.e. 2^24 /64s, i.e. the equivalent of a 10.x Class A, to
>> cover its end users.  (the cellular operator I work with dedicates
>> a /47 to cover its end users).
>
> Then that cellular operator is extremely small and only has less
> than 128k users.

Yes, it looks so.

> 3GPP mandates /64 per PDP context. That's what mobile operators use.
>
> I know operator who allocate new pools to their GGSNs in chunks of
> /44s, ie covering a million users at a time.

YEs yes, but how much of that /44 is covering the end-users and how much
is reserved for interconnnections?

> /40 is not much, is one 1/256th of the default allocation you get by
> just showing up and saying "hello, I am LIR and I want to use IPv6".

Ah great, but I guess few cellular operators (if any?) are LIRs.  Or
maybe that's true and I didnt know.

If all this were that simple and clearcut - there are enough /64s out
there - then why operators only assign one per one end user?

Alex