Subject: RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:16:33 -0800

Keith,

> Keith Moore wrote:
> I think it would be much wiser to NOT impose constraints on how
> people orgainze their networks until we have a hell of a good
> reason. e.g. If an ISP gives its customers /64s they should still
> be able to subnet. subnetting a /64 is a lot beter than NAT.

I think that we have a hell of a good reason here, and that good
reason is simplicity.

Between:

1. Telling ISPs that they should give customers that want to subnet
a /48. (or tell customers that want to subnet that, if they don't
get a /48 from their ISP, they'd better shop somewhere else)

and

2. Getting into subnetting of the IID with all its consequences
like loss of autoconfig, loss of privacy and so on

I say 1. is the path we must choose because it is the responsible
thing to do.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:50:39 -0500

> I think that we have a hell of a good reason here, and that good

You're not arguing for simplicity, you're arguing for complexity and
lack of flexibility.

> get a /48 from their ISP, they'd better shop somewhere else)

It's one thing for us to tell ISPs how they should allocate addresses.
It's quite another thing for them to do it.  We don't know yet whether 
ISPs will follow these recommendations.  And at least in the v4 internet,
telling customers to shop elsewhere doesn't work - often they don't 
have viable alternatives.

> I say 1. is the path we must choose because it is the responsible

Where in the world did you get the idea that 'the responsible thing
to do' is to place constraints on how sites can use their addresses?

By allowing sites to subnet /64s we aren't forcing them to give up 
autoconfig, private addresses, etc...  We're giving them - and 
the Internet in general - more flexibility.

Keith

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:58:46 -0800

> get a /48 from their ISP, they'd better shop somewhere else)

We should also not forget to point out that they already have one or
more /48's from the uncooperative ISP, simply by using 6to4.

Tony

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:04:36 -0500

> more /48's from the uncooperative ISP, simply by using 6to4.

presuming, of course, that IPv4 service with a stable address is available
at that time, and that the ISP doesn't filter 6to4 packets.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:17:14 -0500

> > presuming, of course, that IPv4 service with a stable address
> > is available at that time, and that the ISP doesn't filter 6to4 packets.
> 
> In those cases Shipworm is the mechansim of choice. 

no it's not, because shipworm doesn't provide stable addresses under
these conditions either.  and an ISP that filters 6to4 can also filter 
shipworm.

> In any case we need
> to be forcing the system to provide uninhibited IPv6 service to the
> applications. If ISPs try to prevent that it will cost them effort, and
> eventually customers.

I don't know how much 'forcing' we can do, but providing customers with
extra flexibility in how they assign addresses won't hurt.  

And while I would like to believe that ISPs that impair customers' ability 
to use the net will suffer, current experience doesn't bear that out.

Keith

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:13:09 -0800

In those cases Shipworm is the mechansim of choice. In any case we need
to be forcing the system to provide uninhibited IPv6 service to the
applications. If ISPs try to prevent that it will cost them effort, and
eventually customers.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:05 AM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: Michel Py; Keith Moore; Robert Elz; Brian E Carpenter; JJ Behrens;
> Irina Dayal; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification
>
>
> is available

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:32:14 -0800

From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
> extra flexibility in how they assign addresses won't hurt.  

It sounds like IPv6 is just a redo of the "plastic", "toy", legacy IPv4 Internet.

http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv8/Papers/VirtualVault/

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.IPv8.info