Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 04/11/2020 à 17:53, Philip Homburg a écrit :
>> We could also write an RFC BCOP that the minimum requirement allocation is
>> a /64 and that operators must abide by that.
>>
>> We could also develop a RIPE doc and publish with ISOC that mandates the
>> standard as well as work with all operator groups worldwide to ensure they
>> abide by the BCOP.
> 
> If mobile providers don't comply with RIPE-690 (and many other documents that
> tell ISPs that just providing a /64 is not enough), then why do you expect
> that any new documents have any effect?

I discovered that document, thank you.

RIPE-690 says "IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. In IPv6 you assign a short 
prefix to each end-user site, so they are able to have as many subnets 
(/64s)"

That is a good direction.  But 'site' is not a 'smartphone'.  The text 
should say 'site and smartphone', or 'site and User Equipment'. 
Otherwise cellular operators do not feel concerned about that RIPE document.

I know of other even stronger than RIPE requirements that operators will 
likely overlook.  The document that sells 5G licenses to mobile 
operators requires them to do several things, among which to use 'IPv6 
routing compatibility' in 5G.  That way of formulating sounds 
encouraging for the IPv6-inclined but also is a way to do nothing: any 
current IP router is 'compatible' with IPv6 routing out of the box. 
Should that requirement have been formulated such as: MUST offer native 
IPv6-only default routes to end users, and provided we had a good 
definition of 'IPv6-only', then there would be more chances for IPv6 
deployment.

RIPE should clarify its document.

Alex

> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>