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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 02 March 2017 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 380C6128E18 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:49:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GCXo5Vse-jw8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (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 CC6A7127A90 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:49:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B499224AE09; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:49:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC38216009F; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC2E1600A6; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZWhTLX3f3FGm; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D463016009F; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63AB65D34EC; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 09:48:56 +1100 (EST)
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <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> <367D5BA9-F588-4F2B-A783-2C8BAF9B27BF@consulintel.es> <b6ff1b86-698c-0b8f-6a08-7d6bf8a33c8f@gmail.com> <E2709C92-4C32-4E1C-A8A1-B6B98F0BF336@consulintel.es> <6b89579e-62e8-dfb5-070e-b08989b9492a@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Mar 2017 21:23:56 +0100." <6b89579e-62e8-dfb5-070e-b08989b9492a@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:48:56 +1100
Message-Id: <20170302224856.E63AB65D34EC@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/brVSJVSsWj73tKiPbfp1s2jUfaI>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:49:13 -0000

In message <6b89579e-62e8-dfb5-070e-b08989b9492a@gmail.com>;, Alexandre Petrescu
 writes:
> Le 02/03/2017  20:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a crit :
> > I understood from one of your previous emails that 3GPP doesnt
> > require DHCPv6-PD.
>
> Right - if I understand correctly, it does not require DHCPv6-PD on the
> UE.  Maybe in the core, but not in the UE.
>
> > RFC6653, suggest its use, so probably we got confused ourselves and
> > 3GPP is actually using it.
> >
> > 6rd is a different thing, because is actually IPv4 link and IPv6 is a
> > tunnel, so you typically use DHCP (v4).
>
> I agree.
>
> > In IPv6-only world (including cellular), the WAN link will be
> > IPv6-only instead of dual-stack. This is already happening.
> >
> > If they dont use it, I guess is the same reason why big vendors
> > didnt implemented yet RDDNS
>
> I wonder if Windows refusing RDNSS doesn't have somehting to do with its
> Teredo; and extending this logic to smartphones: the lack of answers to
> DHCPv6-PD issued from the UE may have something to do with 464xlat
> presence.
>
> Could it be that 464xlat presence on UE makes it that DHCPv6-PD is
> impossible on same UE?

No.  They are or should be orthogonal.  One is about providing IPv4
as as service.  The other is about providing IPv6 address space.

> > Cellular world is using 464XLAT, and they use DHCPv6-PD. Check
> > RFC6877.
>
> I guess you mean cellular stations (like BS, not the User Equipment)
> uses DHCPv6-PD within the fixed network.

No, the UE should be using DHCPv6-PD.  This is how tethered equipement
should be getting IPv6 address space.

> Because cellular operator I am aware of replies to DHCPv6-PD requests
> issued from an User Equipment.
>
> Alex
>
> >
> > 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,
> > 20:15 Para: <ipv6@ietf.org>; Asunto: Re: Objection to
> > draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 02/03/2017  20:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a crit :
> >> I guess because the lack of DHCPv6-PD support, as you already
> >> indicated?
> >
> > But for deity's sake - DHCPv6-PD is available as open source... it's
> > common software.  Just download and install.  The IETF Specs suggest
> > it, and the 3GPP specs require it too.
> >
> > There must be something else making these router equipment
> > manufacturers refraining from downloading and installing DHCPv6-PD.
> >
> >> I think majority of the households and business customers get
> >> configured the CPE by means for DHCPv6-PD
> >
> > AFAIK my CPE at home does not use DHCPv6-PD, but something based on
> > IPv4, like 6rd.  I think it's something developped in-house at that
> > particular operator.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >>
> >> 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  19:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a crit :
> >>> 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-s
> urvey
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Saludos, Jordi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>; en
> >>> nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>; Organizacin:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org