[184531] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /27 the new /24
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Oct 7 08:15:37 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <7D65285B-EA76-4A8F-8437-8B0F0212C211@beckman.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 05:13:37 -0700
To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Memory footprint is still an issue in lots of things like ESP8266 (which =
doesn=E2=80=99t yet support IPv6, but hopefully will soon).
Not everything is a cell phone or larger. There are lots of cool new =
things coming out in the SoC world where you=E2=80=99ve got a micro =
controller, GPIOs, CAN, SPI, WiFi, and more all in a single chip or =
module.
Another example (also currently IPv4 only, but hopefully that will get =
fixed) is particle.io.
These are $10-$20 (and sometimes even less) complete systems with very =
small memories and very low power consumption which are great for =
deploying things like remote sensors and the like.
Owen
> On Oct 4, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>=20
> Stefann,
>=20
> You're right. I remember hearing rumblings of vendors requesting this =
change, mostly because embedded processors of the time had difficulty =
performing well with IPv6. I see that in 2011 rfc6434 lowered IPSec from =
"must" to "should". Nevertheless, plenty of products produced before =
2011 included IPSec and the vast majority of IPv6-capable nodes on the =
Internet have it today. Performance is no longer an issue.=20
>=20
> -mel beckman
>=20
>> On Oct 4, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>>> Op 4 okt. 2015, om 16:52 heeft Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> het =
volgende geschreven:
>>>=20
>>> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it =
failed to support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA.
>>=20
>> I think you're still looking at an old version of the IPv6 Node =
Requirements. Check https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6434#section-11, =
specifically this bit:
>>=20
>> """
>> Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the =
key management approach of IKE. This document updates that =
recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture a SHOULD for =
all IPv6 nodes.
>> """
>>=20
>> This was published in December 2011.
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>> Sander
>>=20
