Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Le 03/03/2017 à 14:43, Erik Kline a écrit :
> >
> > Because Prefix Delegation capabilities may not be available in some
> > attached networks, L_REC#1 is strongly recommended to accommodate
> > early deployments. =====
> >
> >
> > This is wrong.  We should _never_ recommend somehting we know it does
> > not scale.  64share does not scale, there is a 'multi-link subnets'
> > RFC and there is operational experience showing so.
> >
> >
> > False.
> >
> > We wrote IPv6 tethering in Android N (MR1), it uses 64share, and it
> > pretty much works just fine.
>
> Works fine but does is scale?

Yes, millions of users (apple and android) on many networks use what is
described in 64share.  64share describes 100% of the cases where users get
ipv6 addresses via 3gpp phone tether afaik. Spare me the discussion about
how the dongle ....

I am unaware of any network or mainstream smartphone that supports
dhcp-pd.  I am sure you can rig something up, but i am simply referring to
your comment of scale in the real world for todays use cases.

This is ietf, running code matters. Deployments matter even more.

Bike shed colors do not matter, bike shed colors for flying bike to bike
communication is an interesting topic, but I suggest you avoid calling the
current bike shed a failure and keeping its deployment reality a dirty
secret. We tried that with nat44, it did not turn out well.

CB

>
> > It is tricky if you want to further delegate from there,
>
> That 'tricky' scares me, really.
>
> > but works A-OK for its stated intended purpose.
>
> If its intended purposes are that 'deployments require 64 sharing', as
> RFC7849 puts it, please let me say I have strong doubts.
>
> If the intended purpose is "make one or two WiFi hotspots on a
> smartphone" - then say so everywhere.  Do not generalise, or falsely
> induce people into thinking 64share can be used to anything more than
> just that.
>
> Do not put this 64share into 3GPP specs.  Do not put this 64share into
> IETF documents having '3GPP' in their titles.
>
> It's as if I put my preferred 'Hello World' software in 3GPP specs.
> True, it runs on a smartphone, but what more could 3GPP care about it.
>
> 3GPP does much more about extendign networks at the edges than just one
> or two wifi hotspots on a smartphone.  64share does not scale to that.
>
> But let me ask: what is the intended purpose of 64share from your point
> of view?
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>