Re: [v6ops] WGLC: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02 - multiple prefixes per device

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 16 March 2017 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAEA129A9B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bC5MzFgrmONd for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84FA9129AC2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3415824AE22; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:26:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3FC8160080; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8712316007E; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id YScY1qlPoidt; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0969F160076; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77ADD66F1D4A; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:26:33 +1100 (EST)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, v6ops@ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <c8c0f5be-28bb-ba31-16da-7fc7e3fccec0@gmail.com> <20170316082639.GF2367@Space.Net> <29F9E911-E637-456D-A930-3316FFD93C41@jisc.ac.uk> <27AE6A05-C742-44BF-98E8-BFCEC72316F2@employees.org> <EF0F4950-F238-4001-BA74-D9440524BEFA@gmail.com> <634a6a12-4d82-da33-6d1d-baae2e5b2891@gmail.com> <13DA8077-91C1-4B3F-9D67-3727F546D202@employees.org> <13194a4f-aeda-63b0-0293-6bc738b068f2@gmail.com> <4D60B43B-24F9-4701-800E-13CF32CD4769@employees.org> <8fc7f3e7-7155-f184-c028-a9f6da7e97db@gmail.com> <20170316201413.GQ2367@Space.Net> <212f8258-a025-325e-badc-e7bdcc2bf5f7@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:43:47 +1300." <212f8258-a025-325e-badc-e7bdcc2bf5f7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:26:33 +1100
Message-Id: <20170316232633.77ADD66F1D4A@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZgS7F8QM0AJtFPvcYfnYTg6zV-Q>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02 - multiple prefixes per device
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:28:00 -0000

In message <212f8258-a025-325e-badc-e7bdcc2bf5f7@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter 
writes:
> On 17/03/2017 09:14, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 06:31:43AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> So, it seems clear to me that while getting a /64 is better than getting
> >> a /128, it's even better to get a /56. Or even one of those 15 trillion /4
> 8s.
> >> We should make it clear that /64 is not even second-best. Just better
> >> than /128.
> > 
> > "give any *host* that connects a /48" (and dimension pools on WiFi
> > hotspots etc. big enough to actually be able to do this) might actually 
> > be a good way to ensure IPv6 is going to run out faster than expected...
> > 
> > IOW, be careful with the maths here.
> 
> Yes, one always needs cautious allocation policies. But still... /64
> is not enough in the general case, with today's link-layer media
> and today's IPv6 stacks. (We can have the argument about tomorrow
> some other time. :-)

And PD allows for a node to do multiple PD requests.  Each router
doesn't need a pool of prefixes to answer PD requests from.  It can
do a upstream request to full fill the downstream request on demand.

A coffee shop is a site or part of a site.  That site should have
a /48 with 65536 /64 subnets to further allocate.  Hosts draw from
that pool.  Yes, that does mean that there are lots of intra site
routing entries for /64's rather than for shorter prefix lengths.
That however shouldn't matter because it is not a excessive number
for even the most inexpensive router to handle and they are summaried
as a /48 in the global routing table.  Even with a few of /48 pools
from different ISPs it still isn't excessive.

When a iPhone requests a PD over its cellular interface it is acting
as a border router.  When it requests a PD over its WiFi interface
(because some app wants lots of addresses or to connect the BT to
the WiFi) it is acting as a interior router.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org