Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 12:17 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:

> On Jun 2, 2017, at 10:14, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 09:08, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> Example: I don't want us to have to deal with NAT any more, ever.
>
>
> I've seen this comment made before, and yet the /64 hard boundary
> practically guarantees that NAT will get used with IPv6. It's exactly the
> same solution, for exactly the same problem. Inability to expand at the
> edges.
>
>
> I have reluctantly come to believe that service providers MUST have the
> ability to force their economy class subscribers into artificially small
> allocations, so they can charge premium prices for larger ones drawn from
> the same functionally limitless supply at equivalent cost. We have to
> expect that only business and luxury class subscribers will have
> sufficiently large allocations that IPv6/NAT will add more costs than it
> saves them.
>
> I once believed IPv4/NAT was about preserving scarce number resources. I
> now think that was wrong. It was always about optimizing rents across
> differing classes of subscribers even when the extracted resource on which
> the rents are derived is practically unlimited. In this one respect, IPv6
> is no different than IPv4. As a purely technical matter, the rent MUST flow.
>
> Accordingly, I say we should stop arguing that IPv6 does not require NAT.
> For certain classes of subscriber, NAT is essential for making IPv6 service
> available at an affordable price. Indeed, any internet layer that uses
> fixed size global scope addresses requires NAT at the provider/subscriber
> boundary.
>
>
James, have you seen this situation in IPv6?  I personally have not seen
scenarios where there is class of service that requires IPv6 NAT or less
than a /64 is given.

I have also not seen in the IPv6 marketplace a scenario where cost is tied
to address space size.

Please share where this scenario is real.

Regards,
CB

>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>