[v6ops] Re: [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-iids-problem-statement-01.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

So, my question is that if people have concerns about over-enthusiastic use of IPv6's "infinite" address space over the very long term, why is making the /64 boundary more flexible by a small architectural adjustment (already consistent with RFC 4861 and 4862 and BCP 198) such a terrible idea?

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 20-Sep-24 05:21, Jeremy Duncan wrote:
> " If you are also required to give a /64 to every device that wants to use DHCP-PD, and your ISP only gives you a /56, then that would limit you to
> <256 such devices in your network."
> **that's wrong. It's 256 /64 subnets
> **but if doing DHCPv6-PD it's 256 devices that are doing things like containers, etc - whole other standards on this.
> **there's no ISP that will do DHCPv6PD that will force /64 per device - what evidence do you have here?
> 
> -Jeremy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Candler <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 1:11 PM
> To: Jeremy Duncan <[e-mail]>; Gert Doering <[e-mail]>; Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]>; IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re: [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-iids-problem-statement-01.txt
> 
> [EXTERNAL] Verify links and attachments with sender.
> 
> On 19/09/2024 17:11, Jeremy Duncan wrote:
>> That’s a disingenuous argument. It’s like saying we need to care for
>> the amount of sunlight we receive because it’s going to run out… in
>> like 2-3 billion years…
> 
> It's being squeezed from all directions.
> 
> A /64 prefix is needed for each layer 2 domain (switched network). Those only scale reliably up to a few hundred devices; more than that and you need a router with multiple prefixes. Hence the need for at least a /56 for end users.
> 
> If you are also required to give a /64 to every device that wants to use DHCP-PD, and your ISP only gives you a /56, then that would limit you to
> <256 such devices in your network.
> 
> At the other side, larger ISPs are being allocated /16's, of which there are only 8192 in total available, giving a land-grab and a clear path to burnout before much of the world is even using IPv6 in anger.
> 
> All this because someone thought it would be a great idea to use MAC addresses to assign host addresses autonomously, without realising at the time what the privacy implications were. If they had, and we kept DHCPv6, we could give each end user a /96, and they'd still have more usable addresses than the whole IPv4 Internet. But yes, that ship has sailed.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]