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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Thu, 02 March 2017 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1234a5327c=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 80F181294A9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:55:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=jordi.palet@consulintel.es header.d=consulintel.es
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 qBNrSQ3y8_dT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [217.126.185.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD651294A8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:55:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1488480897; x=1489085697; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=aROM1n4UV6Myn3OvGolatWXeh A4TVmRvN13/lftMbBY=; b=aMd3iLMy2SkUvKrTm1/+jNFGrvL10cQci+k0HhXtl Au6I+3QV3AYtAoxpHtHtms4ojEndlyVObZKa5kSJ9i+Y2CQ7u5iWFLNfnma7sqZM Z/hpyyfIybvntdtk96BwRBFUW03e2RHHv23cTrSJhVXNBg0elFI/8xrFyVUdVrQs 4k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=oedLhTafiyK7XLxgKMz4R+XYUjPLNut2JnMakAW8Zf8ye1USqbZ+Yj/LLj/r VZSWKvCaW/uADqSgq0dEHnXkAEDo5ACsEpC0mpA4BNyfWOkwdFmeqi033 l0WwFumaX9WfbLKw1ZArheqjpT++oKcj+YoaijhXPNDckswx9WxNa8=;
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:54:57 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:54:53 +0100
Received: from [10.10.10.99] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005377500.msg for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:54:52 +0100
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:170302:md50005377500::V7LR/1YEOlCPUC5/:00000/13
X-Return-Path: prvs=1234a5327c=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ipv6@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:54:49 +0100
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <7338F75E-94D9-4330-99C5-C5A9D7B0A066@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <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>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021929170.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/erzSfNR9JvSO2WmfAfov8JmoH2Q>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
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 18:55:03 -0000

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.

Full details at:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jordipaletm/results-of-the-ipv6-deployment-survey

Saludos,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>; en nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>;
Organización: 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.