Subject: Importance of SLAAC (Re: Analysis of 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing)

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 09:04:38 -0400

SCOPE:
  This note is both a general comment and also a specific comment
  on the "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing" draft.

As a consultant, I deal with a range of different network user groups.

Large enterprises are very comfortable maintaing and configuring lots
of infrastructure (e.g. DHCP servers, sophisticated address plans).
Most colleges/universities seem to be very similar to large enterprises
in this regard.  Obviously, exceptions do exist.

The number of large enterprises is dwarfed by the number of small
enterprises that are connected (or starting to connect) to the Internet.
However, many small enterprises can't afford to maintain or configure
any infrastructure.  They don't have a full-time IT person.  They
pay per-hour for on-call IT help instead.  They buy next-day on-site 
support for their PCs/Macs when they buy the hardware.  A number of the 
small enterprises that I deal with find SLAAC the biggest benefit of IPv6.  
SLAAC permits them to provide bare-minimum, one-time, configuration 
to 1 device (usually a site border-router/firewall that nearly always 
costs less than US$ 1000, and often costs less than US$ 150).  Some
use MS Windows Server, but a growing number of the small enterprise
sites that I see don't really have a "server" at all.  They've 
outsourced their public web page and their SMTP relay to some
service provider (sometimes their ISP, other times some different
firm).  Enabling and managing a DHCP server just is not practical 
or cost-effective to many small businesses.

Small enterprise users are possibly the least represented category
of IPv6 (and IPv4) users within the IETF.  SLAAC is really important
to these users.  It would be nice if the WG would keep this user
community (and SLAAC's importance to them) in the front of our
minds.

Yours,

Ran Atkinson

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:54:09 -0500

Ran,

I agree with the concept that SLACC is extremely important to minimize 
technical infrastructure and network management effort, especially in 
small enterprises.  However, I'm puzzled by how you intend this comment 
to apply to the why64 draft.

Are you suggesting SLACC should be modified to work with IID length 
other than /64?  Like DHCPv6 or manual configuration can?

Or, are you suggesting that the simplicity of SLACC with a singe IID 
length of 64 is important for minimizing technical infrastructure and 
network management effort, especially in small enterprises?  Maybe 
adding something to that effect in section 2.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [email-masked]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================