Re: Market forces

[Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:29 PM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:22 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 9, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I think the current and existing need that wouldn't be being satisfied
>> with a single /64 are things like a guest WIFI SSID in the home, or perhaps
>> a kids SSID where Internet access policy can be applied.
>>
>>
>> That’s true, but the same caveat applies: right now, the ISP is giving
>> the customer an IPv4 address, and so they can just do NAT. If IPv6 doesn’t
>> work because they gave out a /64, right now they feel no pain. Later on,
>> when they are trying to economize on IPv4 support, the pain will become
>> more apparent, and then it’ll seem obvious and cheap to start giving out
>> narrower PDs.
>>
>
>    Or if the IID 64 bit boundary is eliminated the /64 would be sufficient
> and could be sub divided.  Now there is not any dependency on PD and even
> today broadband operators are still giving out /64 and not /56 or larger.
> Without going down the painful NAT ULA path it makes sense to easily solve
> the single /64 allocation issue which exists for 3GPP PDP but also exists
> for wired broadband only getting a /64 via PD.  Now they wont have to wait
> for providers to make a change as they can now can autonomously do their
> own segmentation.
>

So, dumb question, but would it make sense to consider some local
coordination
mechanism that assigns "subnet" meaning to the most significant bits of the
IIDs
on a link? RFC 7136 basically says that IIDs have no structure, RFC 8065
says
we'd like to have at least 46 bits of entropy for IIDs used in global
addresses and
ideally ~59. Other RFCs have defined privacy IIDs, etc. RFC 6282 allows for
compression of arbitrary prefixes; no /64 architectural constraint there.

Kerry


>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>