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

Le 03/03/2017 à 19:08, Ca By a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Le 03/03/2017 à 18:27, Ca By a écrit :
>     [...]
>
>     > For your convenience, i provide this quote from it.
>     >
>     > "DHCPv6 is the best way to delegate a prefix to a LAN link.
>
>     I agree.
>
>     > The methods described in this document SHOULD only be applied when
>     > deploying DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation is not achievable in the 3GPP
>     > network and the UE."
>
>     I disagree with this formulation.  It leaves place for applying it.
>
>
> Correct , 64share was writen to be deployed.
>
>
>     The method in this document SHOULD NOT be applied because it is not a
>     scalable networking technology.
>
>     Please stop using it.
>
>
> I disagree with SHOULD NOT since i am certainly focused on immediate
> business / engineering issues.

That is _too_ immediate business.  Maybe you should look at the longer term.

> I do not have any more to offer on this topic.

That's what I am asking - stop defending this RFC.

Alex

>
>
>
>     > "
>     >
>     > So telling anyone about 64share is by association telling them
>     > dhcp-pd is best.
>     >
>     > Dhcp-pd will be deployed as soon as the business case justifies it,
>
>     I think you are too much immediate business oriented.  Please have a
>     longer term look.
>
>     If you agreed that 64share is evil, then you may open the ways for even
>     more traffic into your network.
>
>     > 64share is a single LAN stop gap.
>
>     I agree.  It is single LAN, but it is not a stop gap.
>
>     It is a stop in that it stops creating the demand for scalable
>     networking technologies.  It stops the edge networks from growing.
>
>     > Your issue is simply one of supply and demand.
>
>     There is demand.  The supply is lacking.  Moreover, it looks as a
>     purposeful refusal to make supply, without any technical issue.
>
>     Are you interested in getting more traffic through your network?  Or
>     not?
>
>     If you are interested in getting more traffic through your network then
>     give people more addresses - it's as simple as that.
>
>     > No ietf or 3gpp document is lacking specification for making dhcp-pd
>     > happen.
>
>     Were the above text corrected as I suggest, I would indeed agree
>     with you.
>
>     Alex
>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>     >>  v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org
>     <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>> <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >>
>     >
>