Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 16/02/2014 19:22, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 06:41 , Alexandru Petrescu
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> Le 15/02/2014 19:16, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>>> Indeed, the situations where ULA usage is detrimental vastly
>>> outnumbers those where it is actually beneficial.
>>>
>>> If we're going to move something like this forward, that really
>>> should be made clear.
>>
>> Consider new deployments like IPv6 vehicular networks.
>>
>> There is an immediate direction to demonstrate an IPv6 vehicle if it
>> used ULA.  There is also the alternative to request PI or PA IPv6
>> addressing space for these vehicles from some registry, steps which
>> may take time.
>>
>
> It takes about 48 hours to get address space approved from a registry.
> Even less time to get some from a provider in most cases.

Is that for free and does it include setting up IPv6 routing to it, in 
Europe?

> I do not at all buy your argument here.

Ok, I need to learn how to do it, so well as to be able to teach 
somebody else who'd do it.  I am only in the middle.

>
>> These two directions are actually head and tail of same snake: it
>> bites its end, or otherwise put it's a chicken and egg problem: if the
>> deployer sees the prototype works then it may request IPv6 addressing
>> space from registry, but not before it sees it works.
>>
>> At this point I think this draft is good to say that ULAs are useful.
>> Later on maybe less so.  But right now that's reflecting real-world
>> situation.
>>
>
> So we disagree. It is not the first time and probably not the last.
>
>> That's how I see it, and one's mileage may vary.
>>
>> But imposing to not do ULA is little reasonable for some test deployments.
>
> I did not say "don't do ULA". I said that the number of situations where
> ULA is detrimental vastly outweighs the number where it is useful.
>
> Your description above is one of the few cases where it might not be
> detrimental. It is not, however, particularly useful vs. PI or PA.
>
> As such, I think it is appropriate for the draft to make it clear that
> use of ULA should be carefully considered as in most cases it provides
> greater detriment.

Also make it clear that any other alternative is not easy: it involves 
delays and money.


>
>>
>> Alex
>> PS:
>> There are also some intermediary alternatives like IPv4 transitioning
>> (6to4 and other tunnels), 64share.  Each has some inconvenients (6to4
>> requires both IPv4 and IPv6 on cellular, whereas IPv6-only is easier
>> with some operator; 64share only allows one subnet in vehicle).  Also
>> one would consider asking the cellular operator to implement DHCPv6
>> Prefix Delegation, which may also take time.
>
> I'm not sure how any of that relates to the ULA draft in question. ULA
> certainly isn't useful in any of those scenarios.

A vehicle holds a 'mobile router' which may act precisely the same as a 
smartphone and tethering when connecting on cellular.  Except there are 
more subnets in a vehicle than the single subnet a user may carry.

Similar comparisons apply to 6to4 and DHCP Prefix Delegation - it's just 
like a smartphone.

Alex

>
> Owen
>