IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 AA99F12080A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:10:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ClIaoMsTruTc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 454C7120041 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1idEJQ-0000KPC; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:10:28 +0100
Message-Id: <m1idEJQ-0000KPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <E03BBE6C-3BED-4D49-8F79-0A1B313EFD9D@apple.com> <28594.1575483729@localhost> <7ac18a46-31d9-74cc-117a-0fd908413aac@gmail.com> <m1icmif-0000JrC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAFU7BAThtF=Fio_CZFPA+0D7GBZbzpgXMQ5kBiSK5XKi29vkJw@mail.gmail.com> <m1idAT1-0000L9C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20191206123936.GP72330@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:39:36 +0100 ." <20191206123936.GP72330@Space.Net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:10:23 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/JE5iREs2X-R5T-2w-l67rHLnr1A>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 14:10:32 -0000

>"number of IPv4 addresses in the pool" comes to mind.
>
>Like, 80% of all hosts are fine with IPv6+NAT64, so why provision a large
>enough subnet to cover 100% of all expected hosts if 20% will do?
>
>IPv4 seems to be somewhat in short supply these days.

With a few exceptions, just about any DHCP pool I come across these 
days is using RFC 1918.

Are you running out of RFC 1918 addresses in your pool? Or is the setup
that you give publicly routable IPv4 addresses to all dual stack hosts
and want to only put hosts that support NAT64 behind NAT?

In that case, what's the rational for providing dual stack hosts with public
IPv4 addresses?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email