Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> One goal of this document is to ensure that even on networks don't run SLAAC, then we as an industry don't end up with substantial deployments of networks that provide too few addresses. That will over time pressure devices to implement NAT66, and that would be suboptimal for everybody.
> 
> Privacy is only one of the many use cases in the draft. Another pretty clear example is running VMs in your laptop. What are you going to do if the network doesn't run SLAAC but provides you with exactly 1 IA_NA and you want to run a VM? (Other than NAT66, I mean...)

Okay, that helps put it in context.  I don’t think you should tout privacy as an advantage of this proposal, because I don’t think this proposal really helps with privacy, but I agree that it addresses the use case you’re describing.

I think getting vendors to implement this using PD might be challenging, but there are good reasons to do it that way.   However, I don’t think you need to delegate a /64.   Do you buy my theory about just using a /120 to aggregate a bunch of addresses, or no?   I realize of course that you’d also like it if we delegated /48s instead of /56s, and I don’t really disagree with that, but I think if you advance this proposal it’s going to be a hard sell to require the delegation of a /64 per host, and I don’t think it adds any value other than creating upstream pressure to delegate narrower prefixes.