Re: [v6ops] Review: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

> On 23 May 2016, at 16:24, Edwin Cordeiro <edwinsc@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Major Issues: 
> - The DHCPv6-PD is mentioned for the first time only in section 4.3.1 and later at the "Future Work" session. From my understanding DHCPv6-PD is capable of implementing the network as desired in this BCP. Considering the intended status is BCP, I think that DCHPv6-PD should be added as valid implementation alternative.
> - The draft doesn’t mention possible issues of giving one /64 for each UE, for example, a public WIFI with support for 512 users will need a /55 instead of a single /64.

Edwin,

Some comments on those comments as we’re planning on deploying WLAN-GWs that give out /64 per UE.

/55 is probably unnecessarily parimonious and it isn’t on a nibble boundary to make the address plan easy to understand. 
I’d suggest a minimum of /48 for a pool giving out /64s. A larger pool size will help avoid bringing the IPv4 pool exhaustion problem seen in BNGs into an average WLAN-GW.

Regards
Ross

> 
> Minor Issues and Nits: 
> The document has some Nits problems as detailed in: https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-00.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-00.txt>
> 
> Questions:
> - Should this document address the best way to logging the prefix assign to the UE/subscriber?
> - Assigning the same unique prefix if the UE/subscriber reconnect to the same AP, is something that should be considered or avoided?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Edwin Cordeiro
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops