IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Wed, 12 July 2017 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 169F6131689 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 6PFQ2ZDtjWgC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4E0D130154 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D2AA1F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:05:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dGdUuEnOGDyd for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:05:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com (mail-vk0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9606CA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:05:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id i63so8138464vkh.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PJzU0ZZmT6d37gV5y/718fOnTUD99WAM5SA5Hln/8q0=; b=C0vWECKgj8EPYAA0vygJ1//TjaT/OOnWYddc6vVPBJ+FmGWGWpLyiAmDim+eztuJIh ukm1Ef4h203DY+uCrcY0NwUwedt0w+0QOyd8amoqGNUXaZ5KcRoYcEC7dMQMUcMjiWV9 lS0K6qKz6BLtwUvNY9iEHzqnTXRi1NZ5H7Of+slWMy5JcjMj3uYN2l1VXR7c+6jif3Me lijKRc+nYWTvEC/Lu9u5312uI8jW/bmE4TP9DUZNjZ1gFa8eQH0HS98eKcsbv2XFD/I/ EYjeHEmRRKDn5mqJpIR7LeoOxKdk2K8cE9dD2hnb2bqKX0rktXGCkn16shL/MJLthgGd W+6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PJzU0ZZmT6d37gV5y/718fOnTUD99WAM5SA5Hln/8q0=; b=ERYRHVtYE7mNzZDRm1SsXIpeSEb3Ha3Ygpx/+kMA67Rne1tmpaJoUjhQWlzxzScAnU GOCfp68jqCtvpORyY9Kb7N3wWz2gEtdL8ruXHsHftFQ5ezI3fYUTDh7BL85a8qVr6bMg HtwD+szL+DbMDQJ+EhhdDGghk+I/vfss/SSP4Qy2BlQ6E3y5kYjT6XhWPx+NbpLSj6BC voC47u4vcZgs7O02M/9ZPpmO8a7CW3jVOm9kD0PsQE2xgaOiuwpq2S1NeqWrkCfZKmkG YHlS20tb1a4nL2AJPms0YV1oz3UJ11xojGIkYNWSFMNjdn0O2LK+MqzXkWzdMQvybERb Dizg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113hQW8l6QosOmzcyoA5rUttG2bTeoXkQtm493b+gaDgHH/9rehe tDlheOcayhT55ADkiKdS9zBTwBk7JNtKPzhhHRKXF6ISLqhaZJPZXlu6EyWTQ4vNGjxusOJN0yq CSuOWq7Co+2zckPU=
X-Received: by 10.31.166.11 with SMTP id p11mr1188297vke.134.1499864755022; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.31.166.11 with SMTP id p11mr1188280vke.134.1499864754754; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.47.144 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:05:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1x2cpefAnpSwECt9kKjD-fFZfvLTf1y2XnxJ_1oGMByQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142cdbceb2c2305541e7953"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bTiUOtNTg5n4YTj5MlQbXViG5LI>
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, 12 Jul 2017 13:06:00 -0000

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> /64 per-site looks to be proving to be the exception rather than the
> rule. I've been casually observing what ISPs give out, because having
> worked at residential ISPs (and one who provided the first production
> IPv6 on residential broadband in Australia back in 2011), they've
> tended to make static IPv4 addresses and routed subnets a premium or
> business only product option with a corresponding price premium. I
> expected that becoming a standard IPv6 feature may be resisted
> significantly.
>
> Most are giving out /56s. I know of one that is now giving out /60s,
> and they originally gave out a single /64. I know of one that is
> giving out a single /64 on their residential plans, and in the forum
> that is being complained about, people are pointing out that other
> ISPs are giving out /56s.
>
> Here in Australia it is usual for our incumbent Telco to charge the
> most, sometimes for the least, yet they too are giving out /56s
> standard on residential plans.
>
> In a market where there is choice, being miserly with assigned IPv6
> address space won't persist for long if it causes trouble for
> customers - the time and staff cost of dealing with their complaint
> will outweigh any costs of giving them plenty of address space in the
> first place.
>

All I can say is hope so, but from my perspective I'm not seeing it, I'm
seeing /64s per customer.

Related to this I've said several times that section 2.4.4 of RFC4291bis
needs work.  If we are going to keep a clear 64 bit IID requirement, we
need to be equally resolute that ISPs assigning only a /64 is wrong. I'd
like to see some of you that are resolute that we keep the 64 bit IID
requirement commenting about section 2.4.4's issues.

Minimally, for section 2.4.4, I'd like to see a statement that m>1 and a
more direct pointer to RFC6177.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email