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

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi James,

I have not participated in Thread at all and this is mostly hearsayŠ..

However, isn¹t the source of the problem that Thread went down the path of
using a Layer 2 routing scheme that they need to harmonize?  I don¹t see how
IETF is the source of the addressing issues if that is the case.

Don Sturek


From:  ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of james woodyatt
<[e-mail]>
Date:  Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:42 PM
To:  Ca By <[e-mail]>
Cc:  6man <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

On Jun 7, 2017, at 15:41, Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I am unfamiliar with thread () in the real world and don't yet feel compelled
> to believe a widely deployed ietf standards track specifications should bend
> due some niche design choices that may or may not achieve a significant
> deployment. 

As far as I know, nobody associated with Thread apart from me is even
listening to IETF much less offering anything to say. And the only thing I¹m
saying is that IETF should stop pretending that IPv6/NAT in end site
addressing plans is preventable. It¹s inevitable.

I¹m not asking IETF to bend its standards accordingly. I¹m actually
expecting that IETF will not bend, and that it will continue promoting
standards that leave end sites compelled to use IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address
Translation to conserve address space (despite the contrary statement in RFC
6177). The only thing I would prefer to see here is for 6MAN discussions to
recognize the operational reality about IPv6/NAT and stop using discussion
points about how this or that draft should be opposed because its adoption
might lead to the widespread deployment of IPv6/NAT, which I now believe to
be impossible to stop. Indeed, I don¹t think there is any desire among
service providers and equipment vendors to prevent it.

Therefore, in the context of discussions around this particular draft,
I-D.bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6, I would say that arguments about how
subnet prefixes longer than /64 could leave end sites feeling compelled to
use IPv6/NAT for address conservation are not technically strong arguments.
They are already feeling compelled, even at the existing /64 boundary.

There may be other good arguments for retaining the fixed /64 subnet prefix
length in the IPv6 address architecture, but I would say that preventing the
rise of ubiquitous IPv6/NAT should not be one of them. That ship sailed when
RFC 6177 was passed, and it went over the horizon when HOMENET didn¹t
receive any significant uptake among service providers.


--james woodyatt <[e-mail]>



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