Re: [v6ops] Operational Headache: Provisioning domains

If we have a way to say (just examples, in a common case):

1) This residential user gets this /48, assigned with DHCPv6-PD
2) The 1st /64 is reserved for the point to point link, WAN port
3) The 2nd /64 is for VoIP in VLAN 2, Eth2
4) The 3rd /64 is for IPTV in VLAN 3, Eth3
5) The 4th /64 is for x in VLAN 4 ...
6) The user can use all the others (automatic LAN numbering), Eth0, WiFi, etc.
7) The CE recognize it

We could achieve that, I think, in a much easier way.

RFC6603, I believe (need to re-read it), only allows 2) above.

Does it make sense to work in an updated version of RFC6603, probably using as well some of the text in draft-palet-v6ops-p2p-links (which I'm going to update anyway), instead of two different documents?

Regards,
Jordi

El 31/3/19 12:06, "v6ops en nombre de Fred Baker" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> escribió:

    > On Mar 30, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    > By the way, there was this a few years ago: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix I'm still worried by using bits in a GUA prefix for essentially semantic purposes. I fully realise we have a large supply of IPv6 prefixes. But mixing addresses and service semantics just seems very likely to cause problems sooner or later. I'm sorry, that reads like FUD, but that's my feeling.

    No hats

    That, BTW, was the reason I pushed back on Jiang's draft, and I have the same fundamental question about Terastream's use case. I understand both concepts to essentially say something about what address one uses for an application; putting it into the address has the characteristic of ensuring that the same set of bits is present in the packet end to end, which differs from DiffServ. It basically allows DT to make an end to end service, and change the IPv6 head to support it, with actually having to change the IPv6 header. It affects, or can affect, routing, and as I understand it required DT to allocate a truly large prefix. I find myself wondering - what if this were general? Everybody was allocating /24 or larger prefixes to get the equivalent of a DSCP to be usable end to end? The fact of asking the question seems crazy, but at some point, that seems to me to limit the availability of IPv6 address space. Is that a rathole we want the network to go down?

    Just me worrying.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Victorious warriors win first and then go to war,
    Defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
         Sun Tzu

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    v6ops@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.