Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 8:15 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hello Jen:
>
> > So from the network perspective the prefix length does not really matter. As
> > long as your address plan allows that, there is no difference between
> > delegating /128 or /64 from the network scalability perspective.
>
> The big if is whether the plan allows it.
> With what my SP gives me on my phone or my home gateway, I cannot plan for all my devices.
> IPv6 /32s are as scarce as IPv4 addresses, and the wrong decision now could be trouble later.
> Why force a waste everywhere when the usage is only in a few places?

Now I'm wondering if the draft is not clear enough....We are NOT
suggesting that every network shall be doing this. The proposed design
is targeted to large networks, where  having multiple IPv6 addresses
per host is causing scalability issues.
It's up to the network administrator to decide if they want to do
this, and configure the network to support PD (and signal the support
to the hosts)/
There is no reason to deploy this design on your home network, where
the number of hosts is low and even if each host has 10 addresses
it's still not an issue for your CPE.

> > But would make a huge difference to the host. So why not?
>
> I fail to see why /64 makes such a big difference to any host.

Because it means that the host (and its applications) can use as many
addresses as needed.

> Maybe you could explain why it makes such a difference in the hosts where you're aware it does, and then show that it is a general concern? I have trouble to see that from my own experience.

Because the host can use as many addresses as it needs w/o
experiencing random and unpredictable failures, and the administrators
do not need to worry about various hardcoded limits on various
platforms.

> I believe the only debate is whether there's a maximum plen or whether we can go all the way to 128, and for that debate, I believe the admin should own that, not us.

Well, IMHO the whole idea  is that, after some discussion, people
could come up with a set of guidance and shared expectations (usually
called RFCs) so hosts can have some expectations for the network and
the network administrators
know what to expect from hosts.
We can try to agree on a hard number ("the host can expect N
addresses") but I guess we'd fail.
So the proposal is: let's not worry about how many addresses the host
needs as - with DHCPv6-PD - it doesn't matter for the network.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jen Linkova
> > Sent: vendredi 16 décembre 2022 2:24
> > To: Ole Troan <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; draft-collink-v6ops-
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-
> > ent64pd-01.txt
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 8:38 AM Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Possibly mocking the idea of assigning a /64 to every host.
> >
> > Not "every" actually, some of them (I assume you read Section 10).
> >
> > > Regardless the idea of assigning a prefix to a host, even a /128, means the
> > network only has a single forwarding entry per host, which is an improvement.
> >
> > So from the network perspective the prefix length does not really matter. As
> > long as your address plan allows that, there is no difference between
> > delegating /128 or /64 from the network scalability perspective.
> > But would make a huge difference to the host. So why not?
> > In my case, most of the endpoints connected to my network are hosts which are
> > using SLAAC. But some are CPEs which are getting /56 via PD.
> > Does it matter? Not much.
> >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ole
> > >
> > > > On 15 Dec 2022, at 22:31, Gert Doering <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:47:38PM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> > > >> And DHCP PD can of course also assign a /128 prefix to the host if
> > > >> that???s desired. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Not sure this would actually be desirable (trading multiple ND
> > > > entries to multiple host routes), but I suspect you're mocking me a
> > > > bit :-)
> > > >
> > > > Gert Doering
> > > >        -- NetMaster
> > > > --
> > > > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> > > >
> > > > SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael
> > Emmer
> > > > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> > > > D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> > > > Tel: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry