IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] GRASP

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Wed, 27 December 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.com>
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 C3ADC12D82F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:07:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 5h1i9AqS85pe for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:07:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x235.google.com (mail-pg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::235]) (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 061BF12D82E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:07:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r2so3874268pgq.13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:07:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Pl1OrRTsO+DB8ajiSPFdzHwybOTtbIuiI28x8scW1E4=; b=BKU7HlP07cUPoCtb3Rb69Df+iTA5PcsqmLDMjwFQf9hC+8YmWtqBkUTEOgfJv5Nn34 qJVszx02Bn8AVvzuB8tjR44xNp6uVHr5AXdeHv1B9gpO20aBACTXqo2UJ0GtIqm6XYuH reMB0oQM0O1MfdeSj8e4MZHnCde2ngliwHXgblAZ7iegd19ngxOPb82wbBYdBEzVaS/c Jv1N81iPJNFV6iGemHEgfefguo+pGr+rP28WzhxnhChjzzlsQHUCIlQgJLmoTcmh5/GI 9hL8guoJpTyI5o38+BBtb9BY6a05r6kaNhT1O9XJ8qfAKHPJ8qRq8tVH68Tl2IJ7Au0Z TUYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Pl1OrRTsO+DB8ajiSPFdzHwybOTtbIuiI28x8scW1E4=; b=lRZEAhQLOh0MzK+h2qpVjSgSpS8QNlfTUxnpiQdlNN3Vpr+YSnMO7qusmKZXeEG5EM pLdJla4rTQxRkeJhaea1raWjb13KKNikoJVCtitOvh2nXTyhReDs8ShFr9M7PbR6S8Kf dun1862sDsWbHZbyfpPCIw5M4nUw94U7zYBbc0wRYbnvXdjt02j2q3VPY12Sg8gX2dWC 16TLuN3HlRI1EKpuUvSjXuM8vsxOGn8i4lLn4JqxhARgzvrZgl/3/b8NHJ06cOPI7jrH i5H3XRYiK83MoY261kXHEJRHG+n7HX3ahcbbxcJlD0ynR/o3t7jmHIIfSLD7rOQXXUYu vUwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLSSDKc1qehPkaYQTIGU1SHDCm1+GT2LBDDUol+itdt6GZ1IWcS ohJrOHMLhrRD/4Zhu7RfZfOlxA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouTU/KR8M6TbIoEJDQcfnr1z7c5xOeli4VYUctHwPEUUMvd0O0aiz6KHlCIBLdSJXpJ/H6OLA==
X-Received: by 10.98.102.219 with SMTP id s88mr30067889pfj.191.1514416022233; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:07:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::10e7:10:21b9:7cc1:f8b8:3dcb? ([2620:0:10e7:10:21b9:7cc1:f8b8:3dcb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e7sm73514169pfj.44.2017.12.27.15.07.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:07:01 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <B07B4644-B5DC-408E-8130-0832AFAE47E2@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BBF4D075-0387-4020-A001-57AD3B553DC9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:07:00 -0800
In-Reply-To: <90825185-6fd2-296d-229f-43a79e16bb63@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <fc31bd170b134c8292d33f52400b175b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <268669d2-e36d-9fb1-cf1c-d3be4cb85e51@gmail.com> <8316cc707dd847a8b2d45e4b6b468f36@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCDD69B@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <0EFD6879-B33B-4639-AE77-A90607DD9455@google.com> <90825185-6fd2-296d-229f-43a79e16bb63@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jA6GtDMjxJqmLjUU_z3WA9Kj7ZE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] GRASP
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: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:07:05 -0000

On Dec 22, 2017, at 19:35, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't see that argument for homenets. ISPs don't seem reluctant to hand out /64, /56 or /48 to paying subscribers. I can see that if you want to do something fancy while roaming, you might have to deal with a single /128.


They are very reluctant to deploy CPE gateways that use any current or forthcoming protocol to delegate automatically any portion of their prefix to routers on home network links. In shorter terms, they are happy to hand out /56 (less so /48) to CPE edge routers owned by paying customers, but there is no appetite for supporting customers with interior routers downstream of the CPE edge router. Certainly not in their provider provisioned CPE gateway devices that are more often than not bundled in the service agreement and quietly included in the total charge for access. Oh, they might have plans to use that number space with some non-standard prefix distribution protocol, but it appears there is very little appetite for adopting any standard made available for third parties to use freely.

That’s why anybody planning to offer consumers technology solutions that include IPv6 router functions running on nodes located behind CPE routers are forced to resort to address amplifying NAT to operate as a router on the downstream links and a host on the upstream home network link behind the CPE router. Just as happened with IPv4 for pretty much the same reasons. I’ve spent the better part of three years trying to avoid that conclusion, and my experience in V6OPS and HOMENET has led me to conclude that it was a badly wasted effort. NAT66 is the wave of the future.

--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email