IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 27 March 2024 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 655F3C14F689 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -22.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVFYGiMUrodX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3434C14F601 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56c0a249bacso3908030a12.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1711520582; x=1712125382; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fXJ0vUjDZGZp/djLjkP6j7Z5pD4EQkIcpJ/AoTJMg90=; b=zEI+Bw3tXTE2DXLtYB6EwYiHCw9khEFNwphUmp++z+6c41cj2E5oJcJ2t9lBgytRSa 51NEmZaE/zpQgPic0/TgOX/1RuU8YOQQhd08ua6q8wXLORDkF0I1sWzKKiL+sDj5yPDj 9zAHxAKSNPwPzjV8p6Axj1C1tTz2xZVjpHMwZT76pGOZRmDKYqJePS8aFBAJvVTGFDCw dlnuvs9By5ZOewRRTlPvWV9k5H0Uq25w7WExxwOP4jiMshXDpSDk/FU7nqEz1/m62vnF A2H2Zznl7CMaSTyHsvRSOjDcTWfNx+d0tUbG1uA+XIx/dmdBCKMNTpH0Q0IX4560QTqJ u7nw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711520582; x=1712125382; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=fXJ0vUjDZGZp/djLjkP6j7Z5pD4EQkIcpJ/AoTJMg90=; b=CXe1NiXYb10DXDd0vl5EBowTyKjJbQ9Abrn8OUccMrg9RiEJZaJrguSHBWyp551vC/ DQwK5qtjhD5ItffT3fEID/zofQpqBrsXMkAKSBY0KK6buLS4T3qY/vv0reQCG+UiGJVC vARuQxa+04tmcb4pVFpfaXVjfHl9bvnxgW6kpzA50wrXoD9OAkT4EPfUNDdqNzJLIxfW s6F1H71bFsfO5rj0ctXbIVL5inm6iJveVTChE8T8nja+V3q/aqD/X3GRS0XpoApBxokY pPLMWvuf8pwhPTaLIyvKVDqizuQ0MrfHq91H0bGNkx3eTBiQ45c01jXDJHwCZQpy9GgF S08A==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUnsWwfZz+HFeay57eH4x+xo+m0gcO5D8yFchMxeG3OkDt+qenipOXC5G5BO+48Wd2pvfKX+W91otlHuWDx
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwCaBCszg6zuCJG974+gW5XDGqH+6ImrD8Yc4oGslL24FsNhf47 7g/SylIgMkQjbJRnEbYfcF2PGtoHTxetr92V7II7rjELhuPGnf1JJrasTHSLwPwFJCYS3AOufmM hMbC2U2EHbOdjP+NQeGpM6tNBNYegRv6oXKvwzUBcKIeDqfok57gg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEx/c93CA6wpGoopzS/d24EZ06umXZ92TFIl7wZUi4bQlHJJTj/fL39GeNZQCPyILMlMAQgYZNpTNyLL3T1p1I=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:fb88:b0:a46:2243:27b with SMTP id lr8-20020a170906fb8800b00a462243027bmr141606ejb.56.1711520581811; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADmxuPF1AReQCSY13HjqXE+8Jofy_uoo1wmnzs8+whG7Tdc+UQ@mail.gmail.com> <836E3A12-FAAF-4C19-91A1-322203645AAA@employees.org> <CADmxuPEBXYeTPrJqfPEGaxmUM75iKQx6kfCcpHHjxyekZy0xuQ@mail.gmail.com> <492484.1711516392@dyas> <CAPt1N1=8B17ab6-54_L8u5KK1Px5AJ9j8VmTWec0Hp3Dg1OKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=8B17ab6-54_L8u5KK1Px5AJ9j8VmTWec0Hp3Dg1OKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:22:47 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2Yp_nVgkZ9g2Bgv6x9L29bh+RL889uOFw6WMmFHkxtNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004e538006149e70a5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/T2clnpCdrjb_QHGuk3b5-9rOLJc>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 06:23:05 -0000

I don't think that's something we need to worry about, no. I haven't heard
any such requests, and I don't think it would even work anyway without
custom hardware. All CPEs do RFC 7084 and the basic model there is to use
PD on the WAN to get a prefix for the LAN. And if the prefix isn't a /64 or
shorter a lot of implementations won't work.

Enterprise is a different story; there are probably lots of enterprise
network admins who want to assign a single /128 to a device using IA_NA.
I'd guess the goal there is not price gouging but control and
accountability. Hopefully DHCPv6 address registration and PD-to-the-device
will help there.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 2:19 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Are you aware of ISPs that are contemplating single-address-to-the-home or
> charge-per-device? Or is this just speculation based on remembered trauma?
>
> Op wo 27 mrt 2024 om 01:13 schreef Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
>
>>
>> Naoki Matsuhira <matsuhira.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     > I am not a native English speaker and this is the first time I have
>> see the
>>     > word "unilaterally". If the meaning according to the
>> English-Japanese
>>     > dictionary is correct, I feel that this is the reason why there are
>>     > opinions against adoption. How about that.
>>
>> unilaterally in this context means that I can do something without someone
>> else's permission.
>>
>> In particular, end-users have been able to "deploy" NAT44 on their
>> desktops/laptops in order to get their VMs or containers "online" without
>> permission from the (network) administrators.
>>
>> At one point (1997), incumbent telco ISP thought that they would deploy
>> PPPoE
>> to every single desktop in the home, charging more for each connection.
>> People said, "screw you" and put up a NAT44 on their own.  This became the
>> norm as home routers came out and people installed them ad-hoc, and then
>> ISPs
>> deployed them as a matter of course.
>>
>> We are risk the same price gouging behaviour in IPv6.
>> Yet, I support adoption of the document, although I would prefer to
>> create a
>> new WG for it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email