[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Thu May 11 06:57:05 CEST 2017
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, > > As promised at BCOP TF meeting on Monday, the co-authors present at the > RIPE74 meeting gathered on Tuesday afternoon and did some editorial > work, addressing majority of the comments and suggestions we got from > the community based on first version of the draft. > > Draft version 2 is now available for reading at > https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf > > We'll have a short "lightning talk" in Thursday IPv6 WG session, please > go and read the document (those that have enough time and energy), so we > get more feedback and input for further improvements (if needed). > > See you all in couple of hours! Reading this and writing as I read it through: "IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. In IPv6 you assign a number of “n” /64 prefixes to each end-customer site, so they are able to have as many subnets as they wish. " I think this immediately leads the reader wrong. This should be about sites getting a larger prefix, and THEN out of this, they use /64s. So while above is technically true, from a viewpoint of making the reader understand better the hierarchy, I propose above sentence to be: "IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. In IPv6 you assign a large prefix to each end-customer site, so they are able to have as many subnets (/64s) as they need." The /64 for cellular phones should not be in the executive summary. 4. In IPv4, it's not only perception of scarcity, there *is* scarcity. 4. I think I did the calculation and if you have 8B /48s, you still have only consumed around 1/10000th of the IPv6 space. I would use this instead of "480 years". 2^33 is ~8B. 48-33 is 15. So /48 for 8B people uses a /15. Take that down to one of the /3s we have, and it's a /12. 2^12 is 4096. So One /48 per person on earth uses 1/4000th of the currently used /3. So even with inefficient addressing this is not a problem. 4.1.2. Windows PCs CAN do DHCPv6-PD, if they have Internet connection sharing turned on. This worked already in Windows Vista, 10 years ago. However, I understand that this is not the point you're trying to make. 4.2.3. Can't we use the "STRONGLY DISCOURAGED" to use less than /56 ? 5.x I have heard of online gamers being ddos:ed so that someone else gains competitive advantage. It might be good to mention this drawback of persistent prefixes. Good document, I'll refer to it a lot because I keep having discussions with people in different forums about customer prefix size. Thanks! -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]