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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 06/09/2017 03:58 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> In message <[e-mail]>, Simon Hobso
> n writes:
>> Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>> My very limited experience with ISP provided IPv6 is that so far, what
>>>> I've seen is sensible allocations (eg a /56 for a home user). If the
>>>> majority do the right thing, then the exceptions can stand out and get a
>>>> reputation for "broken". I know in the real world there will be cases
>>>> where there's an effective monopoly (for some group of users) allowing
>>>> the ISP to do what they want, but that's not an excuse to just throw in
>>>> the towel and give the rest carte blanch.
>>>
>>> And 256 prefixes very quickly become too few as we develop new
>>> technologies to take advantage that you can get prefixes easily.
>>> ISP's have been short sighted here.  The IETF started out saying
>>> /48 to give every site enough prefixes that they shouldn't have to
>>> go back and get more except in exceptional circumstances.
>>
>> I disagree - at least for home users.
>> Most home users simply unpack the ISP router, plug it in, and connect their d
>> evices to it.
>> They plug in their webcams https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/08/whitebox_
>> webcam_scatters_vulnerabilities_through_multiple_oems/
>> plug in their "smart" lightbulbs https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/27/osr
>> am_smart_lightbulbs/
>> plug in their "smart" doorbell & locks https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/
>> 12/ring_doorbell_reveals_wifi_credentials/
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/08/using_a_smart_bluetooth_lock_to_prote
>> ct_your_valuables_youre_an_idiot/
>> connect their kids toys http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/19/hello_barbie/
>>  and their own "toys" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/07/your_sec_toy_is
>> _spying_on_you_hackers_crack_our_plastic_pals/
>>
>> I could go on (kettles, fridges, bathroom scales, ... all with reported secur
>> ity flaws), but I think you get the idea !
>> All of this will be on one network, one subnet/prefix. The majority of users 
>> (some small rounding error below 100%) will have no idea at all about network
>> ing, they won't have any clue about setting up multiple networks - and the wa
>> y much of the kit works, it won't work anyway if the device isn't on the same
>>  network/subnet/prefix and the users phone/tablet.
> 
> Just because you are not used to home routers that configure multiple
> subnets doesn't mean they don't exist.
> 
>> I recall a few years ago visiting my alma mater and found that ethernet
>> ports  had appeared in the rooms. When I plugged into one, I could see
>> all the security cameras etc were on the same segment and even the same
>> subnet ! If a university college can't get simple things like this right,
>> what makes you think  home users will do any better ?
> 
> Because we will ship routers that do multiple subnets by default
> because that is what is needed to deal with situations like you
> describe above.
> 
>> As I sit here (as part of that rounding error of users), to be frank, I
>> am struggling to think what I could (practically) use 10 separate networks
>> for, let alone 100 or 200 or 256 !
> 
> Uses will come up.  I use 3 subnets today for the home.  I would
> expect that I'll use more in the future.  Once more than one becomes
> common people will design stuff that can make use of additional
> subnets.

(you || me || we) != users


network_knowledge(users) == NULL

(and that's the way it should be)


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492