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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Thu, 02 March 2017 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1234a5327c=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 F37CF129608 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:06:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=jordi.palet@consulintel.es header.d=consulintel.es
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 E_CxR_Q0DhWW for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:06:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [217.126.185.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB491295D2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:06:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1488481578; x=1489086378; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=faUe7G2IRGnyITyGNUDDTk2GM aGfAuBv775DFw5c1Ag=; b=d0vGUPOKypQlGAYuCHYYQEnVGnROapcFo8H52DeT2 nE1jtzUuIUyb8g6IiNsX9UKHqGjULMXwmJy4Te8d1YtxRsvxZtsNafaHE4dc5ehl h+4lb7Hy46qYoEGOWGFuABh2Lane2FAVWuKDwvxiuO1BWmD0rsVi6thkv5sBDUj/ xU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=ZDBOFHMzwer5yPIbUoQkm0IaqHbLVMZcrZjzqb7RZwEmNvmIIvTq9bNh7y9s 53A4Q8bCsvaLS6wim9dLTVTdXBE9+hPBnI5i1+G0fpMjsL82FfkBYq2OB AeTvIKV6ukFESjYIArcF91uEv+BfxD8TfbBc88beD0YXMrgNVKd/8c=;
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:06:18 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:06:18 +0100
Received: from [10.10.10.99] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005377510.msg for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:06:16 +0100
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:170302:md50005377510::/sViXCdCGLYOj+/z:00000EX0
X-Return-Path: prvs=1234a5327c=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ipv6@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:06:15 +0100
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <367D5BA9-F588-4F2B-A783-2C8BAF9B27BF@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <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> <efe2504e-198c-36ce-c79f-be1886e5d031@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021929170.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se> <7338F75E-94D9-4330-99C5-C5A9D7B0A066@consulintel.es> <8c848dd1-ceab-887c-5348-2b1bd9920bfa@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8c848dd1-ceab-887c-5348-2b1bd9920bfa@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Sof8-zpfEGrVE_I51JAmqfzTddw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
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 19:06:22 -0000

I guess because the lack of DHCPv6-PD support, as you already indicated?

I think majority of the households and business customers get configured the CPE by means for DHCPv6-PD …

Saludos,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>; en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>;
Responder a: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>;
Fecha: jueves, 2 de marzo de 2017, 20:02
Para: <ipv6@ietf.org>;
Asunto: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

    
    
    Le 02/03/2017 à 19:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
    > Actually, is not correct that most use /56 for residential.
    >
    >> From my last review of the survey, worldwide, 22% use /48, 35% use
    >> /56, but there is a lot of ISPs (33%) doing it wrong and using /64,
    >> which of course, we are explaining them that is wrong. 10% use
    >> “other” sizes.
    
    So how comes that households can get /56s but smartphones no?
    
    Really there must be something there hidden.
    
    Alex
    
    >
    > Full details at:
    >
    > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jordipaletm/results-of-the-ipv6-deployment-survey
    >
    >  Saludos, Jordi
    >
    >
    > -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>; en nombre
    > de Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>; Organización: People's Front
    > Against WWW Responder a: <swmike@swm.pp.se>; Fecha: jueves, 2 de marzo
    > de 2017, 19:33 Para: Alexandre Petrescu
    > <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; CC: <ipv6@ietf.org>; Asunto: Re:
    > Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
    >
    > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
    >
    >> YEs yes, but how much of that /44 is covering the end-users and how
    >> much is reserved for interconnnections?
    >
    > Nothing. It's /44 to the GGSN/SPGW.
    >
    >> Ah great, but I guess few cellular operators (if any?) are LIRs.
    >> Or maybe that's true and I didnt know.
    >
    > You don't 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?
    >
    > Because DHCPv6-PD hasn't been implemented in mobile networks yet
    > (that I know of). So that's all they can do per 3GPP standards.
    >
    > Residential rollouts, most use /56 per customer.
    >
    >> From the RIRs, you can without further justification get /48 per
    >> "site",
    > so if you show up to RIR and you're LIR and you say "hello, I have 40
    >  million customers and I want to give each customer a /48" then
    > they'll give you a /22 most likely. You're perfectly within your
    > right as an operator to deploy /48 per customer per current RIR rules
    > that I am aware of.
    >
    > -- Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
    > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you
    > ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6
    > Company
    >
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
    > or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
    > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
    > aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
    > contents of this information, including attached files, is
    > prohibited.
    >
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
    > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    ipv6@ietf.org
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.