Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:11 PM Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> In message <[e-mail]>,
> "Manfredi, Albert E" writes:
> > From: ipv6 mailto:[e-mail] On Behalf Of james woodyatt
> >
> > > This category of problem is about connecting *routers* (not hosts)
> > > to the Internet via RFC 7278.
> >
> > Or hosts which operate like routers?
> >
> > > If all youre connecting at the hotspot are hosts, then why would you
> > > need more than one subnet?
> >
> > My smartphone is assigned a single /64. It becomes a WiFi hotspot. So, de
> > minimis, it creates a /65, for its WiFi interface, which any number of
> > local WiFi users can use. Why not allow SLAAC for these WiFi users? And,
> > why should we not allow, trivially, more flexibility? We now have these
> > "whole home WiFi" systems. Why should that smartphone's /64 not be
> > capable of supporting two or three local WiFi hotspots?
> >
> > Point being, all of this can be done with absolutely no consequences to
> > the service provider, other than potentially some extra traffic volume on
> > that one /64 facing the operator. But only if that 64-bit boundary is not
> > fixed.
>
> Operators that only give you a single /64 have already STOLEN 65535
> subnets from you.  The architecture document say to give each site
> a /48.  Addresses are handed to ISP's in the basis of /48's being
> handed out to customers (you don't need to justify the space beyond
> saying you are giving out /48s).  It doesn't cost more to route /48
> than it does a /64.  These is less than a cent difference per
> customer to get a /48 vs a /64 from the RIRs.  A cell phone is a
> site border router the moment it turns on tethering.
>
> > > And if you need more than one subnet for some premium mobile hotspot
> > > thingie I guess why not use more than one UE?
> >
> > Of course you can use multiple phones with /64s, if that's what you're
> > asking?  But not without going hat in hand to the operator.
> >
> > With IoT, example in cars, or in homes, no one can tell how many
> > different subnets will make sense. If a home router is assigned a /64, it
> > should be able to use that one /64 effectively, without constantly having
> > to ask for more? And SLAAC should be available, for inside the home. Why
> > not? Either that, or for sure, you will see NAT used with IPv6.
> >
> > Summary: I keep seeing people saying that they dont want to see NAT used
> > with IPv6. In the next sentence, they say they want a fixed boundary at
> > /64. The only way the two ideas can be compatible is if we have a prefix
> > police that mandates some arbitrary max prefix length to be handed out,
> > by operators, like /48. But operators keep saying no way, and they hand
> > out /64s. Rock, hard place. (And, not to be ignored, then there's the
> > hype of this limitless address space offered by 128-bit addresses, as if
> > it's actually usable.)
>
> More it is the MBA that thinks saving a couple of dollars on RIR
> fees by only requesting just enough space to support a /64 per
> customer is a good idea without looking at the entire picture.  Yes,
> it adds up when there are millions of customers.  Charging 5 cents
> extra per month would cover the additional costs many times over.


That MBA does not exist.  I have never seen RIR fees be a factor in subnet
size for ipv6.



>
> > Bert
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>