Re: [v6ops] FW: Can you please review and comment on draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines

Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com> Sun, 24 October 2021 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B883A087D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 09:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOhqcAZ1W4VT for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB81B3A087C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 09:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml711-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HcjT54hn9z67N8Z; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:59:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) by fraeml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 18:04:04 +0200
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.61]) by fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.61]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.015; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 18:04:03 +0200
From: Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com" <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] FW: Can you please review and comment on draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines
Thread-Index: Ade+v0DqlMmv3tIXS6iO/L8QlyP9zAAAEp6QAACR5dABmjMLAACV/E6wADAdtxAAFpxagAAT39ew
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 16:04:03 +0000
Message-ID: <b1faefbcea414771b0d91b1b0dd21649@huawei.com>
References: <5e866a598eab4d48bdcbe8b7d566866f@huawei.com> <a158b8aa-9507-e134-9b95-d0aacb63123c@gmail.com> <4e5d07b50df549b3965e02d61446a2ae@huawei.com> <YXUUVdN61Ks2od+/@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <YXUUVdN61Ks2od+/@Space.Net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.48.219.45]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BnoCO-x-1asXTi2vW5P3jL5koDo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] FW: Can you please review and comment on draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 16:04:13 -0000

Hi Gert,

Thank you for your time to review and comment.  Please see my response in line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net]
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 10:08 AM
> To: Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] FW: Can you please review and comment on draft-xiao-
> v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 07:26:12PM +0000, Xipengxiao wrote:
> > > 2. I expect a lot of objections to UPPH. It really is a ridiculous
> > > waste of address space, unless we can reduce the subnet size with a
> > > prefix greater than /64, and that seems very difficult in the IETF.
> >
> > [XX] While I acknowledge that giving each host a /64 may seem
> > wasteful, in reality it may not be so bad, for 2 reasons (1) I heard
> > that RIR will give /29 to an applicant without requiring special
> > justification. This will provide 2**35=32 billion /64's - more than
> > enough I would think
> 
> The /29 is intended to number many individual customers.  ISPs are giving /56s
> out of this to "SOHO" customers, and /48s to "business customers".
 
[XX] A business Wi-Fi deployment can be considered as a " business customer", and be given a /48 as you suggest. This will allow 64K hosts if each host gets a /64.  Seems like a reasonable arrangement to me.

> You can't assume that these are all free to be burned in arbitrary numbers of
> /64s on wifi deployments.
> 
> (I, for one, will never ever deploy technology that will require me to allocate
> something like a /54 to a wifi network, just to be able to serve 1000 mobile
> clients [/54 = 2^10 = 1024 /64s] - which is not even very large for a corp wifi)
 
[XX] Your opinion is respected.  But the fact is we give each mobile phone is /64 today, and each RG (resident gateway) a /56.  So giving a host a /64 is already a widely existed current practice.   

> > (2) We are giving a /64 to each mobile phone.  If we can afford that
> > in this scenario (with by far the largest number of hosts), we should
> > be able to afford that in other scenarios (with smaller number of
> > hosts).  Do you agree?
> 
> This is totally not comparable, as there are many layers of address not involved
> here.  Mobile ISPs get the /29 "all for themselves", and the way stuff attaches
> to the mobile network is way different from the way wifi segments are
> attached to normal building networks.
 
[XX] First our draft is not specific to Wi-Fi.  Second, why giving a host a /64 or not depends on " the way stuff attaches
to the network"?

> 
> (I like the idea of being able to delegate a /96 with DHCPv6-PD to each device,
> to appease Lorenzo and finally be done with the everlasting
> DHCPv6 vs. Android discussion - but the numbers for /64 are really not working
> out)

[XX] I have no problem with what you suggested, but that's a different discussion.  Please note that our draft didn't prescribe any new solution (or advocate giving each host a /64).  All it did was reviewing the existing ND issues and solutions, and suggested how to select a solution based on the deployment scenario.

Thanks again for your time.  It's appreciated!

XiPeng