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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 02 March 2017 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 1DB8C1295BF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:33:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 WxEDxbcfD6bg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 16267129593 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 215C0A7; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:33:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1488479583; bh=bZf770lSo9xVf/oCJ0GbyIaIrIxe8HAt/EGvE/pZtQs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SzaQXBP04mhi02JlP+2H7DEintdXk5h+ZihwR1qM0K+5ANoMa32Ei7PByY0wikb9Z R70LtufcugPT8Uh+zCJvqgj4djlaOAzfytRBVUZw4Wa9kPBM0xADCtQW1dNFR4oCa4 jVzapCBqpO7BwWtax8WoXRjTzmd17PYiiYWeA5GE=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BF3A6; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:33:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:33:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
In-Reply-To: <efe2504e-198c-36ce-c79f-be1886e5d031@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021929170.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ldmo2_zZFsN81SHuS0KSCfmPHt0>
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 18:33:06 -0000

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