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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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?

> 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