[v6ops] Re: [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-iids-problem-statement-01.txt

[Daryll Swer <[e-mail]>]

>
> What’s the difference if the minimum widely accepted SLAAC-only subnet
> size is /80 tomorrow, and the same ISP gives you /80?
>

You answered this question yourself already. If an ISP provides only single
/64 ia_pd, we can take that, and slice it into /80 per VLAN with DHCPv6.

However, if an ISP provides only single /80 ia_pd, we're pushing it further
and further out, and I don't see how that is a good thing to be going after.

In both cases, you're likely going to be stuck to just ia_na, and have way
too small of a prefix to be able to properly make use of the /64 or /80 for
ia_pd internally, such as routing of a /64 to a Docker host for native,
NAT-less IPv6 container networking.

It's not just about grannies and home networks for nerds here. As a
consultant, I often day get queries from clients and business owners who
*aren't* ISPs, but wanted to adopt IPv6 for their branches/remote sites in
the rural areas etc. This is for production business use.

Guess what? Their ISP insists on either one of the two conditions:
1. No IPv6-ever.
2. Single /64 which is too much overhead for these businesses to bother
with weird /80 or /110 or whatever, for DHCPv6 ia_na etc, and definitely
none of them will bother subnetting a /64 or shorter prefixes to route it
for their on-site box that runs Docker (or whatever container networking
tech you prefer).

In both cases, the ISP incentivises the customer to pay for a static v4 /32
or /30 or whatever and just NAT/PAT traffic and stick with IPv4.

Some airlines charge extra for carry-on baggage. Some people are willing to
> pay less and carry their toothbrush and underwear in their backpack. Why
> should the Internet business be any different? Why would a granny with a
> single PC have to pay the same price for the Internet service as a geek who
> wants to have 64K subnets at home? Oh wait, there are no grannies in IETF ;)
>

Here in India, at least, typically the logic is, IPv6 will be *free* of
charge for the *original* assignment (largely a /64, some do /56 per
BCOP-690 and /48 for DIA ports) in order to incentivise everybody (home,
grannies, that Dosa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosa_(food)> shop over
there that I like, SMEs, large campus networks) to move their internal
applications/usage to IPv6, so that they can stop whining about CGNAT/Lack
of IPv4 static/dynamic public IP etc.

I am *not* claiming to be a business and financial mathematics expert. But
I've spoken to many business folks who run ISPs around the world as a
consultant, never once have I met someone who recommends we charge for >
/64 *or* > /80 separately. In fact, many of them (from my personal limited,
small sampling size of business owners) are opened to just “keep it simple,
give /56 ia_pd static to everyone and just call it a day, we got more
important things to worry about such as customer onboarding, area coverage
expansion etc. Charge for anything beyond that”.

As far as RIR fees go, I may be outdated here, but last time I checked,
LACNIC, AFRINIC, RIPE and ARIN have pretty damn cheap IPv6 from the POV of
a small ISP, for a single /32. APNIC has changed their fee structure and
increases it every year and, in APAC at least, yes, indeed we do have many
ISPs complaining about it, but that's a RIR problem, not an IETF protocol
design group problem.

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://mailtrack.io/l/3f1ecd51c11555b88533e06ecd7a9c107da07e65?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=dd6b2fb0c8192ec3>


On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 16:56, Ivan Pepelnjak <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If there is incentive for ISPs to move from /56 to /80 (e.g. due to
>>
> ARIN fee structure) this incentive should be corrected where it comes
>> from.
>>
>
> Are you asserting that ISPs that provide only a /64 today are *not* going
> to move to /80 once /80 becomes widely accepted?
>
>
> So what? You are able to deploy one SLAAC-only subnet with direct Internet
> connectivity when an ISP gives you a /64 today… unless you have hosts that
> run DHCPv6 clients (most platforms these days with a few rare exceptions),
> in which case you can have as many subnets as you wish today, regardless of
> what the ISP is giving you.
>
> What’s the difference if the minimum widely accepted SLAAC-only subnet
> size is /80 tomorrow, and the same ISP gives you /80?
>
> Why would they not do so? I have heard from many ISPs, in more than one
> country, that they provide /64 as a business decision, not a technical one.
> The intention is to provide upsell opportunities.
>
>
> Some airlines charge extra for carry-on baggage. Some people are willing
> to pay less and carry their toothbrush and underwear in their backpack. Why
> should the Internet business be any different? Why would a granny with a
> single PC have to pay the same price for the Internet service as a geek who
> wants to have 64K subnets at home? Oh wait, there are no grannies in IETF ;)
>
> One example is Comcast. Another example: in most of Japan, fiber ISPs only
> provide a /64, and to get a /56 you have to sign up for a separate service
> that costs the equivalent of $5/month.
>
>
> So you’re saying that your personal disgust with a particular ISP should
> shape the development of IPv6?
>
> Ivan
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>