Subject: [BEHAVE] What is the expectation of IPv6 addresses leased to users is a hotspot-like model?

From: Dave Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:40:09 +0000

What is the expectation of how addresses managed by some third party 
connectivity provider (not an ISP) would be provided to users?  A good 
example might be a hotel that offers IPv6 connectivity to its guests.

Right now in the IPv4 world that hotel will generally offer a single 
NAT'd IP address for which the user signs up and pays for the 
connection.  Should they want 2 connections they usually end up having 
to pay twice and therefore might well have a small portable NAT router 
or use something like Windows ICS to enable 2 or more hosts to be 
connected behind that one NAT'd IP (and we have a double NAT).

Are we to expect that the hotel will now provide subnets or at least 
more than one address in an IPv6 world without additional charges?  How 
will such resellers of connectivity be persuaded to act differently to 
the way in which they already operate?  Is some other WG defining this 
sort of operational model in a way that won't make a NAT (and I mean an 
IPv4 port-mapping one too!) look attractive to those users?

Regards,
Dave

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:16:35 +0200

Dave,

You might want to check out the thread "/128 address allocation and
"localized IPv6 address space exhaustion"" in 6man/dhc (but I think that
thread did not come to any conclusion).
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg09176.html

If /128 address is allocated to the host without support for free DHCPv6
Prefix Delegation, a local IPv6 address shortage situation is created,
which indeed is likely to be tackled with familiar IPv4 side tools =
NAPTs. 

If there will be _some_ networks where only single /128 address is
allocated to hosts, what can the OS developers do but implement IPv6
NAPT in order to be always able to provide Internet Connectivity Sharing
feature (in addition to bridging).

Maybe we should write document describing that allocation of only /128
per host is potentially harmful (as it assumes the "host" is indeed the
leaf node)?

Best regards,

	Teemu

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Dave Hudson
>Sent: 24 November, 2008 16:40
>To: 'Behave Mailing List'
>Subject: [BEHAVE] What is the expectation of IPv6 addresses 
>leased to users is a hotspot-like model?
>
>What is the expectation of how addresses managed by some third 
>party connectivity provider (not an ISP) would be provided to 
>users?  A good example might be a hotel that offers IPv6 
>connectivity to its guests.
>
>Right now in the IPv4 world that hotel will generally offer a 
>single NAT'd IP address for which the user signs up and pays 
>for the connection.  Should they want 2 connections they 
>usually end up having to pay twice and therefore might well 
>have a small portable NAT router or use something like Windows 
>ICS to enable 2 or more hosts to be connected behind that one 
>NAT'd IP (and we have a double NAT).
>
>Are we to expect that the hotel will now provide subnets or at 
>least more than one address in an IPv6 world without 
>additional charges?  How will such resellers of connectivity 
>be persuaded to act differently to the way in which they 
>already operate?  Is some other WG defining this sort of 
>operational model in a way that won't make a NAT (and I mean an

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:41:26 +1300

This discussion belongs in v6ops surely?

Meanwhile check out RFC4779 perhaps.

   Brian