[182018] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jul 9 12:55:06 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <939dc84108954b5182c99f578809402e@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:51:56 -0700
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 09:16 , Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
>=20
> When I see a car that needs a /56 subnet then I=E2=80=99ll take your =
use case seriously. Otherwise, it=E2=80=99s just plain laughable. Yes, I =
could theorize a use case for this, but then I could theorize that =
someday everyone will get to work using jetpacks.
When I see a reason not to give out /48s, I might start taking your =
argument seriously.
> We have prefix delegation already via DHCP-PD, but some in the IPv6 =
world don=E2=80=99t even want to support DHCP, how does SLAAC do prefix =
delegation, or am I missing something else? I assume each car is going =
to be running as RA? Given quality of implementations of IPv6 in =
embedded devices so far, I found that pretty ludicrous.
Clearly the quality of IPv6 in embedded devices needs to improve. =
There=E2=80=99s clearly work being done on LWIP IPv6, but I don=E2=80=99t =
think it=E2=80=99s ready for prime time yet. (LWIP is one of the most =
popular embedded IP stacks. You=E2=80=99ll find it in a wide range of =
devices, including, but not limited to the ESP8266).
> Seriously, the IPv6 world needs to get a clue. Creating new protocols =
and solutions at this point in the game is only making it more difficult =
for IPv6 deployment, not less. IPv6 needs to stabilize and get going.. =
instead it seems everyone is musing about theoretical world where users =
need 64k networks. I understand the idea of not wanting to not think =
things through, but IPv6 is how many years old, and we are still arguing =
about these things? Don=E2=80=99t let the prefect be the enemy of the =
good.
/48s for end sites are NOT new=E2=80=A6 They have been part of the IPv6 =
design criteria from about the same time 128-bit addresses were decided. =
It is these silly IPv4-think notions of /56 and /60 that are new changes =
to the protocol.
The good news is that it=E2=80=99s very easy to deploy /48s and if it =
turns out we were wrong, virtually everyone currently advocating /48s =
will happily help you get more restrictive allocation policies when =
2000::/3 runs out. (assuming any of us are still alive when that =
happens).
Owen
