RE: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

I agree with James here. Zero-conf router deployments will need to assume a
substantial number of subnet bits are available, else the zero part goes
away. 

Moving the bits from the consumer side of the allocation to the provider
side only -assures- that they will never be used. Once ISPs build a practice
around any specific prefix length, that will never change, because the
business case for changing it will never be satisfied. If the prefix length
is too small to begin with there is no hope that the consumer will be able
to get more, because that will not conform to the one-size-fits-all
provisioning model that will be deployed (it already exists for IPv4 at
/32). 

This document should clearly state that there is no -technical- reason for
anything longer than a /48, and there are clear technical reasons for
nothing longer than a /60. There may be -business- reasons for nibble values
in between, but those should not be confused with technical requirements. 

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of james woodyatt
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 6:05 PM
> To: IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt
> 
> On Dec 4, 2007, at 17:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 2007-12-05 09:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > ...
> >>  So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who
> >> feels /60 isn't enough.
> >
> > Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with
> > entertainment, building services, and home office all running on
> > various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough.
> 
> I'm pretty sure /60 isn't big enough over the foreseeable future.
> I'm *also* not sure that /56 is big enough.  I'm concerned about a
> problem I can see arising in a world of zero-configuration IPv6
> router/firewalls that implement "CPE simple security" by default, and
> they're scattered around the interior of residential networks, i.e.
> all over inside people's homes- possibly because they are integrated
> into consumer devices that require expert users to turn them off.
> 
> I'm foreseeing these devices negotiating with one another what
> subnets to advertise in much the same way that Appletalk routers once
> did- like back in the old hellish days when people could just buy
> routers, plug them together and they'd just work without people
> having to configure them with all kinds of arcane code numbers.
> 
> 
> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
>