Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:16 AM
> To: Andrew ???? Yourtchenko
> Cc: IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Andrew ????  Yourtchenko wrote:
> > I did not look at it as a problem given that every mobile phone on
> > IPv6 will already get a /64 per host, and the number of mobile phones
> > is dramatically bigger than the number of fixed installations.
> 
> Bigger than then number of L2 *segments*, undoubtly.
> 
> But no way bigger than "the number of devices that could attach to
> a L2 link" - as all these mobile phone also has wifi, so you have way
> more devices that attach to "shared links".
> 
> Network structure is also way different - in mobile, all devices attach
> to some sort of aggregation router (via 3G PDP tunnels etc) - while
> in "classic" networking, you have a multitude of independent segments
> that do not normally have aggregation infrastructure or provisioning
> available.  Prefix mobility in a typical enterprise networks (where
> you'd have enough devices in a L2 segment to start think about scaling)
> isn't really there.
> 
> > But I pulled that assumption more or less out of my thumb, based on
> > observed anecdata, so would be happy to be proven wrong.
> >
> > If we say we want to absolutely avoid NAT, then something has to give,
> > and I don't know which tradeoff is a better one, both can be argued
> > for and against. I think we might need both.
> 
> If you want my opinion, I think DHCPv6-PD to single hosts (= not something
> that does tethering) is not a reasonable approach.
> 
> If something does tethering, you need to decide what you're talking about,
> "enterprise-ish", "mobile" or "homenet".  In mobile, DHCPv6-PD, or just
> sharing the PDP /64.  In homenet, HNCP or DHCPv6-PD.  In the enterprise?
> No idea what can be implemented with the typical constraints on
> trackability, security, etc.  (like: if the device attaches to *this*
> network, it's permitted to go *there* by IP ACLs - whether or not this
> is a reasonable approach in itself anymore stands to be debated, but it
> will be with us for a long time).

In the enterprise, you can do AERO. Treat the enterprise as one gigantic
link. Use DHCPv6 PD to delegate prefixes to mobile enterprise nodes
on the link. Use IPv6 ND the same as on any other NBMA link. It scales
to as many nodes as can be covered by the enterprise's IPv6 prefix
allocations, and it uses route optimization to avoid tethering. It is a
scalable and incrementally deployable solution for IPv6 deployment
on enterprise mobile nodes. Give each one its own IPv6 prefix, and
let it connect up an Internet of Things as it sees fit.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279