Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-00.txt

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

We had such an RFC it was RFC3177, it wasn't very effective, many
disagreed with it and it was ignored. We can say that /48s MUST be given
out on request, but there is nothing to enforce that. You have to remember
RFCs are voluntary, there is no Internet police. If you think that the IETF
can force any network to do anything you misunderstand the system we have.
Networks comply because they agree and see an advantage.

However, you can always get IPv6 addresses, even a /48, you might have to
go to a different ISP, or an RIR yourself and you may have to route them
yourself, which most people are either incapable or unwilling to do.

You might be able to get government regulators to enforce something like
that, but be very careful what you ask for. And at least the US that
doesn't seem to be going in that kind of regulatory direction.

I agree with Brian's suggestions in a different email, we need to make the
case why /48 makes sense and is in an ISP's and their customer's interest.
Not dictate a magic number to them.  Homenet is a big part of that, but I'm
not sure by itself it's enough.

In most cases, especially when Homenet is not in use /56 seems like plenty
of address space for the typical home, even /60 will work in many cases.
The message we need to make clear is a single /64 is not good enough.

Thanks.

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> There must a way to define how prefixes are assigned to always allow /48,
> if needed. If not in rfc6177-bis than in another RFC. We have already one
> limitation for SLAAC that makes sure every home gets at least one /64. We
> can add another one, in another RFC, to make sure /48 is given on a demand.
> That will insure future flexibility in any network and make the prefix
> assignment non-political process.
>
> Regards,
> Dusan.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:27 AM
> > To: Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <[e-mail]>; Lea Roberts
> > <[e-mail]>; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> > <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; IPv6 Operations
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-00.txt
> >
> > On 2018-08-28 06:23, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) wrote:
> > > Section 4.
> > > "   b.  An end-user should be able to receive any prefix length up to
> /48
> > >        simply by asking."
> > >
> > > Can  this be defined in a way to make sure that new applications and
> > devices will always work at end sites without a need for asking ISPs for
> extra
> > address space? Otherwise, the end-user might not get what he/she asks
> for,
> > without paying for the "higher grade" service. Can the definition impose
> up
> > to /48 LAP when needed at end sites? For example, can an application
> > request a home router to request an ISP for /48 prefix and, when
> requested,
> > ISP must grant it?
> >
> > Unfortunately we can never say "must" in this context. What ISPs will
> > provide
> > for what fee is well outside the IETF's competence. As observed on
> another
> > thread, applications need to be agile, even if they work better if such a
> > request was granted.
> >
> > I'd say that once this update is done, it may be time to revisit
> > RFC4084.
> >
> > Regards
> >     Brian
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dusan Mudric.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lea Roberts
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 2:08 PM
> > >> To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>; JORDI PALET
> > >> MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>
> > >> Cc: [e-mail]; IPv6 Operations
> > >> <[e-mail]>
> > >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-00.txt
> > >>
> > >> hi Brian and Jordi -
> > >>
> > >> excellent comments and I agree also.
> > >>
> > >> thank you!!
> > >> /Lea
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Brian,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks a lot for commenting and sorry the late answer ... too busy
> last
> > >> weeks.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Comments in-line below (subjected to my co-author agreement),
> > basically,
> > >> agree with all your inputs, except a couple of points.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Jordi
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Mensaje original-----
> > >>>
> > >>> De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Brian E Carpenter
> > >> <[e-mail]>
> > >>>
> > >>> Organizaci?n: University of Auckland
> > >>>
> > >>> Fecha: domingo, 8 de julio de 2018, 17:43
> > >>>
> > >>> Para: <[e-mail]>, IPv6 Operations
> > >> <[e-mail]>
> > >>>
> > >>> Asunto: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-00.txt
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Thanks for this draft.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > Abstract
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    This needs to be shorter. Three paragraphs is too much.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> For the next version, I've reduced 50% the length of the 1st
> paragraph.
> > 3rd
> > >> paragraph, I recall is mandatory (IDNits).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > ... policy should reflect that assignment of a single subnet is
> > >>>
> > >>>    > no longer appropriate unless the recipient explicitly agrees to
> the
> > >>>
> > >>>    > limitations implied by such an assignment.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    I *strongly* suggest deleting the "unless" clause. It leaves a
> > >>>
> > >>>    loophole, and it could easily be hidden in shrink-wrap terms
> > >>>
> > >>>    and conditions so that a subscriber would agree without even
> > >>>
> > >>>    knowing about it. Reduce this simply to:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>       ... policy should reflect that assignment of a single subnet is
> > >>>
> > >>>       never appropriate.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed and done.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > 1.  Introduction
> > >>>
> > >>>    ....
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    1.  It is extremely discouraged that /128s be given out.
> While there
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        may be some cases where assigning only a single address
> may be
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        justified, a site, by definition, implies multiple
> subnets and
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        multiple devices.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    I find this a bit weak. Try:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>       1.  It is extremely discouraged that /128s be given out.
> While there
> > >>>
> > >>>           may be some applications where assigning only a single
> address
> > may
> > >> be
> > >>>
> > >>>           tolerated, a site, by definition, implies multiple subnets
> and
> > >>>
> > >>>           multiple devices. Also, a /128 prevents any form of
> privacy-based
> > >>>
> > >>>           addressing.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    4.  This revision has been created to more clearly assert the
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        requirement to ensure that address assignments to
> end-sites
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        provide a sufficiently big number of subnets (/64 on
> classic
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        networks) to each end-site, taking under consideration
> the end-
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        site's future expected needs, new deployment
> expectations and
> > >> new
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        protocol requirements, among others.  Once all these are
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        considered, it seems unlikely that a single subnet (/64)
> or even
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        a small number of them should be assigned, unless very
> clearly
> > >>>
> > >>>    >        justified and agreed to by the end-site.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    The "unless" clause is dangerous because of shrink-wrap terms and
> > >>>
> > >>>    conditions. I suggest deleting it.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > 2.  Considerations Regarding the Prefix Length
> > >>>
> > >>>    ....
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    This consideration should be noticed, across this document,
> in the
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    sense that end-sites usually have subnets that use, by
> default,
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    SLAAC, and consequently, the LAP is mandatorily a /64.  Other
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    technologies, may have a different LAP, which must be used
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    accordingly.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    I suggest s/Other/Future/ since /64 prevails everywhere today.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > 3.  On /48 Assignments to End-Sites
> > >>>
> > >>>    ....
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    An important
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    goal in IPv6 is to significantly change the default and
> minimal end
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    site assignment, from "a single address" to "multiple
> networks" and
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    to ensure that end-sites can easily obtain address space.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    I suggest adding something like this:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    As the operational costs of carrier-grade NAT and address+port
> sharing
> > >>>
> > >>>    have shown, availability of multiple addresses and prefixes to
> end sites
> > >>>
> > >>>    that need them will be a considerable saving to their ISPs.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    It might be tempting to give home sites a single /64, since
> that is
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    already significantly more address space compared with
> today's
> > IPv4
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    practice.  However, this precludes the expectation that even
> home
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    sites will grow to support multiple subnets going forward.
> Hence, it
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    s/expectation/certainty/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    ....
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    A key goal of the recommendations in [RFC3177] is to
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    ensure that upon renumbering, one does not have to deal with
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    renumbering into a smaller subnet size.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Perhaps add:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    In particular this would apply to any site that switches to
> > >>>
> > >>>    an ISP that provides a longer prefix.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    It should be noted that similar arguments apply to the
> management
> > of
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    zone files in the DNS.  In particular, managing the reverse
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    (ip6.arpa) tree is simplified when all links are numbered
> using the
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    same subnet ids
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    s/numbered/renumbered/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    ....
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    years, and we don't recover back the /48's, we will be able
> to use
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    IPv6 addressing space for over 100.000 years.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Perhaps add:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    This document does not advocate careless use of address space, but
> > >>>
> > >>>    there is objectively no reason to be restrictve.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    ....
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    Today typically, a home has already a considerable number of
> > possible
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    subnets (a common CE has 4 LAN ports, 2 WiFi radios which
> support
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    several SSIDs each one, VoIP subnet, IPTV subnet, additional
> > VLANs)
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    and if downstream routers are used, there is a need for
> further
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    subnets.  This means that in a short term, assigning a /60
> (16
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    subnets), it is already a really bad decision, as it may
> enforce IPv6
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    NAT between the main CE and downstream routers.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    I suggest deleting "as it may enforce IPv6 NAT between the main CE
> > and
> > >>>
> > >>>    downstream routers". Firstly it puts NAT into the reader's mind.
> > Secondly,
> > >>>
> > >>>    it isn't the only solution - IIDs shorter than 64 could also be
> > implemented.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > 4.  Impact on IPv6 Standards
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    I propose to simply delete this section.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Firstly, RFC3056 is deprecated so it's irrelevant today.
> > >>>
> > >>>    Secondly, the argument about ULAs (RFC4193) doesn't hold up.
> > >>>
> > >>>    ULAs are like any other /48 prefix - if you are forced to
> > >>>
> > >>>    renumber into a longer prefix, you lose some subnet bits.
> > >>>
> > >>>    That is already covered in the middle of section 3 (the
> > >>>
> > >>>    "key goal" sentence quoted above).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I recall we deprecated the 6to4 anycast, but not 6to4, in fact 6to4
> to 6to4
> > >> traffic is still useful for peer to peer.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > 6.  Security Considerations
> > >>>
> > >>>    >
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    This document has no known security implications.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Really? More prefix space offers more potential for scanning
> > >>>
> > >>>    attacks. More prefix space also allows the use of slightly
> > >>>
> > >>>    randomized prefixes and/or prefix-per host.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Also of course, a /128 would prevent any form of privacy-based
> > >>>
> > >>>    addressing.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I've introduced new text on those points.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    > 8.  Acknowledgements
> > >>>
> > >>>    >
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    The authors of this document will like to acknowledge the
> authors
> > of
> > >>>
> > >>>    >    previous versions (Thomas Narten and Geoff Huston)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    RFC3177 was signed by the whole IAB and IESG seated in 2001, and
> its
> > >>>
> > >>>    Acknowledgements read:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    >>    This document originated from the IETF IPv6 directorate,
> with
> > much
> > >>>
> > >>>    >>    input from the IAB and IESG.  The original text forming the
> basis of
> > >>>
> > >>>    >>    this document was contributed by Fred Baker and Brian
> Carpenter.
> > >>>
> > >>>    >>    Allison Mankin and Thomas Narten merged the original
> > contributions
> > >>>
> > >>>    >>    into a single document, and Alain Durand edited the document
> > >> through
> > >>>
> > >>>    >>    its final stages.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    Regards
> > >>>
> > >>>        Brian
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>    _______________________________________________
> > >>>
> > >>>    v6ops mailing list
> > >>>
> > >>>    [e-mail]
> > >>>
> > >>>    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > >>
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIDaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKp
> > >> l1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=-
> > >>
> > 5rgYq_nYMbSH2HXHnHFCFi2KDYzOClhSiLn0au8Wu0&s=iEq1tUDbeQL4f3SLM
> > >> f1-xihjJYT0KAAN_BWTl9-779c&e=
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> **********************************************
> > >>> IPv4 is over
> > >>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> > >>
> > 3A__www.consulintel.es&d=DwIDaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3
> > >> Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=-
> > >>
> > 5rgYq_nYMbSH2HXHnHFCFi2KDYzOClhSiLn0au8Wu0&s=GMRLdItF8yKbUdE9
> > >> NuXE-U48uk7OHNuEijym9jhE--s&e=
> > >>> The IPv6 Company
> > >>>
> > >>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or
> > >> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use
> of
> > the
> > >> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> > disclosure,
> > >> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
> even if
> > >> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will
> be
> > considered a
> > >> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
> any
> > >> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information,
> > >> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,
> will be
> > >> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
> sender to
> > >> inform about this communication and delete it.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> v6ops mailing list
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > >>
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIDaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKp
> > >> l1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=-
> > >>
> > 5rgYq_nYMbSH2HXHnHFCFi2KDYzOClhSiLn0au8Wu0&s=iEq1tUDbeQL4f3SLM
> > >> f1-xihjJYT0KAAN_BWTl9-779c&e=
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================