Subject: Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:36:32 -0400 (EDT)

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:

|I've reviewed this document and my comments are as follows.
|
|1. Introduction
|"giving out an excessive". I think we need to define excessive and/or say if
|this is an objective or subjective perception.
|
|A general comment/opinion. I don't think this document should be published
|as is, because it provides a bad message to the market about IPv6 assignment
|recommendations not being stable. I will be in favor of a "smaller" revision
|of RFC3177, not so much disruptive as this one, but in the other way around,
|discouraging /128 and /64 assignments.
|
|I think the motivations behind the /48 are still valid and one of the main
|goals of IPv6 addressing space is to ensure enough space to end-users, which
|is only ensured with a clear boundary recommendation.
|
|Furthermore, the lack of a clear boundary disrupts the RFC3177 goal of
|ensuring a consistent subnet to facilitate management and renumbering. In
|practice receiving a new assignment from and ISP w/o a specific
|recommendation will be a big source of troubles if different ISPs decide to
|do different things. Take the case of a user moving from an existing ISP
|with today provides a /48 to a new one.
|
|In addition, as an end user, it provides a recommendation to ISPs to provide
|a reduced service in terms of the number of subnets, instead of the actual
|/48 recommendations (with a clear example for /56), which I think is very
|bad, especially when it is based in a subjective view of "excessive".
|
|I also think that the lack of clarity in stating that more than a single /64
|is required in most of the cases is going to be wrongly taken as a "go for
|/64".
|
|Regards,
|Jordi

I share Jordi's concerns; however, I think the nature of IPv6 address
space allocations has made this path inevitable--an (unpopular) view I
believe I've expressed from time to time over the years.  At this point
it might be better to accept the inevitable and publicize the use of
variable (larger) prefixes for sites if only to discourage any subtle
(or even not so subtle) product dependencies on /48s.  In particular
it would be good if various consumer/SOHO router products correctly
(and usefully) handled /64s and /128s.

IMHO the "everybody gets a /48" (much like the free software upgrades to
IPv6) was a clever selling point that never stood up to close inspection.
The home office user dialing/VPNing in to his non-ISP company with (only)
a /48 of their own is not going to get a /48.  Products need to handle
this and they might as well handle the general case.

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Remi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:30:54 +0300

Selon Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>:

> In particular

They definitely should handle delegation of any size above or equal to /64. I
don't quite understand how they could support /128 though...

> this and they might as well handle the general case.

Yep.

-- 
Remi Denis-Courmont
http://www.simphalempin.com/home/