Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 June 2017 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@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 99AF0129B34 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hxu2sK6Tw77Z for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56CB5126CC4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id g76so10239957wrd.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2EqVnR4xmxwcm2OC2TrSzxFsc1yuhfgsVj1PlfZYrw4=; b=YHDHrCV0aOKEoMvIXtd0eqGqnUUPu+u+NMG8LZwY9zYUjiyMglyzBSmrm2UyIBpWXv U2U73aAfBGE3LSAsWgPAF7O2thz5QLknIVvKI+UdsMH3FFspbU87BNzcFfXxUVlvmmoz C0ZfeG8HQHLqel5OegGaY2EEylWMisyGE818jdOUynDyER0UtWh50otoqPZagULT6lhc 9gpWxsksMWVWPjmtaQxcRGBh6RtyKMq5qI47V5Y+0Lfd79LoSPKGTDfElMusphZVAMXJ KTPtLBSSnNTIBuC4NF0z4wK2KtePfhzirkzNNWH3a865UKUERNMyy2jQx/yYvm+9BKh9 FpVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2EqVnR4xmxwcm2OC2TrSzxFsc1yuhfgsVj1PlfZYrw4=; b=TG0Zmowvh9Q6Wv/aEpWjqNYeduAgk/noQNDt1EyU8xApTgysjcGvvIOvEHx5lYXbgV AV6n5yuPMYBl/P8MkU4X/f+uUQZD6EZdP46xudjQGurODrzPCmHcukGxQfYMJ5ZwRSNb /ADBifqO8YZnDRbEQfkkDSwwf9KcBmCNtR9/KdL7PYeYbcuHPQni0aGy3V4Ke4cCP8uC rPDYNpSG1ZTgG6fGkvaNcU4H4LIqxyQ+OnnqHEFR+/W71H5y2YDFskH0vxKU6KkxNn2x oZRSDdFgXpkDoMk42U9OqxI9UoW8RRz26u71k6nhGhvOP+vxbT+ezEBh6Hu3sKjK7wX2 qDcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBUbRIF9buxTKdjPsjptUiHQOSaoea9f28Db/hYNjNLnKl3EaSw 1YusTr5J6bMXdxN9PeM=
X-Received: by 10.223.182.130 with SMTP id j2mr3126944wre.87.1496864496899; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5600:1da::1015? ([2600:8802:5600:1da::1015]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l16sm2073546wre.25.2017.06.07.12.41.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8678F73D-2CCD-4781-9947-8C07182DFAF4@google.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:41:32 -0700
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EF9AC09C-5262-4DFB-AA4D-AE95EF81293C@gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wp72j-yOsR8C=iqS+dX14wLwthAtOTvD5ugj_NQ=NQag@mail.gmail.com> <8be34ef8-557f-652e-0d2f-f1a1e008bffd@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1706050827290.17963@uplift.swm.pp.se> <E2B77C58-B235-49D6-8130-0B41BE55899C@google.com> <CAAedzxrkbywKMmUaZ6-OCunXe1sw=q3+TNz278xZDmdsQm3xaw@mail.gmail.com> <93C6138E-A2EE-4005-8C16-05E2A2DEA661@google.com> <CAKD1Yr3+pHFhCwoL4vbQLDQ3PNGpijci8c7eZM=Gb0oTy9C0XA@mail.gmail.com> <8678F73D-2CCD-4781-9947-8C07182DFAF4@google.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/amlIRyZ4YBwWy6TkvJIy1wCHHNo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 07 Jun 2017 19:41:41 -0000

I'm struggling here. Thread is one adaptation of 6LowPAN etc; OCF (formerly OIC) describes and network "on IPv6" and treats 6LowPAN as an encoding of IPv6. For reasons that remain inscrutable to me, Thread acts as if the only link layer in the world were IEEE 802.15.4; OCF is extensible to (gasp) Ethernet, 802.11, ITU G.hn/G.9960 or IEEE 1901, and whatever else.

IPv6, and 6LowPAN, is the dog. The industry associations that use them are the tail. Why is the tail wagging the dog?

https://docs.mbed.com/docs/arm-ipv66lowpan-stack/en/latest/thread_overview/
https://workspace.openconnectivity.org/apps/org/workgroup/technology_sc_open/download.php/8950/Technology-Discussion-v3.pptx

On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:41 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2017, at 01:53, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:06 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:
>> p1. Power conservative ND Proxy isn’t possible with Thread™ 1.1 (and earlier) networks. It may never be possible in future versions of Thread™.
>> 
>> Can you explain to us why it doesn't work? One might naively think that if the BR is doing NAT for hosts behind it, it has to process a similar packets as it would have to process if it were doing ND.
> 
> Thread™ 1.1 doesn’t even use RFC 4861 much less RFC 6775. A proxy for RFC 4861 at the Thread™ 1.1 border router would require DAD and NUD to be translated into prohibitively expensive multicast floods into the mesh. Use of IPv6/NAT allows the border router to make an entire Thread™ mesh reach the public Internet via the one stable IPv6 address that is reliably available on all residential networks with IPv6 providers.
> 
> For years, we have been hoping that HOMENET would address the basic problem here, but now that it's clear the forthcoming update to RFC 7084 will not recommend adoption of the HOMENET protocol suite in IPv6 CPE residential gateways, Thread™ has no other option than to recommend IPv6/NAT to cope with operational reality.
> 
> 
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------