Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > FYI, draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt was submitted just
> > prior to the ID cutoff, and the authors believe it is ready for
> > publication as an RFC. We are in discussion with the ADs about having
> > the document shepherded through the IESG as an informational document.
> > Note that this document would formally replace RFC3177.

> There have already been a lot of comments I agree with, so I'll just 
> mention one higher-level issue that hasn't been mentioned yet 
> (AFAICS):

> This document obsoletes 3177, but does not mention those aspects of 
> 3177 which are not addressed by this document.

Pekka, you've raised this issue before, and I've gone back to 3177 and
tried to include (in 3177bis) the points from 3177 that actually make
sense (to me) to say something about. E.g., there is a lot of the text
in 3177 about multihoming that IMO is pretty irrelevant and there is
not much point in trying to include it.

Can you please be specific about what points you think need to be
carried over into 3177bis?

> Silently leaving them 
> out is bound to raise questions later on, so this document should make 
> an explicit statement one way or the other.  Specifically, at least 
> the discussion on /128 is missing.

3177 has no "discussion" about /128. What it says about /128 is the
following. Quoting from 3177:

   The IESG and the IAB recommend the allocations for the boundary
   between the public and the private topology to follow those general
   rules:

      -  /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers.
      -  /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by
         design.
      -  /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device
         is connecting.


and then later...

   In particular, we recommend:

      -  Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
         always-on connections should receive a /48.
      -  Small and large enterprises should receive a /48.
      -  Very large subscribers could receive a /47 or slightly shorter
         prefix, or multiple /48's.
      -  Mobile networks, such as vehicles or mobile phones with an
         additional network interface (such as bluetooth or 802.11b)
         should receive a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of
         multiple devices through one subnet.
      -  A single PC, with no additional need to subnet, dialing-up from
         a hotel room may receive its /128 IPv6 address for a PPP style
         connection as part of a /64 prefix.

	 
Note that both references are in the specific "recommendation" part
Yet, making a specific recommendation is exactly what this document is
not doing. Can you say something about what you think would be
appropriate to say about /128?

And note for context, that the revised ARIN policy in this regard
doesn't even mention /128 anymore
(http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_8.html) the recommendation
there would appear to say that a /64 is the recommended minimum. Thus,
IMO, we really don't need to be very concerned about /128 to end
sites. No one seems (in practice) seems to think this is something
that ought to be done.

> Btw, the document title should probably say assignment instead of 
> allocation.

Indeed! Thanks.

Thomas