Re: Call for v6ops agenda items

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> I'd be inclined to hear that.

It would be more interesting to hear the plans of an operator than a
vendor.  Their view points are often different.  Unfortunately, that
is not how these things always work.  The draft does an outstanding
job of summarizing how things are supposed to work in the
documentation.  I am disappointed that the draft does not adequately
address the IPv6-only use case, which is how things will likely work
in the real world (see VZW handset spec for LTE where IPv6 connection
is always mandatory, including for SMS, granted IPv4 is optional, but
they have 30x the IPv4 space that T-Mobile USA has  ...).  Relegating
IPv6-only to M2M communications when it will certainly be deployed for
general services (IMS, web, email, ...) with NAT64 as needed. -- but
that is my own operator specific technology drum beating -- full
disclosure.

>
> FWIW. I guess it should be stated that I work for nokia again.

Thanks for the disclosure.  I was certainly thinking that.

>
> joel
>
> teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would there be interest to hear about stateless IPv6 prefix delegation
>> proposal - i.e. prefix delegation like in 6RD/6to4, but without
>> encapsulation:
>>
>> _http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savolainen-stateless-pd-00_
>>
>> This approach would make it easy to delegate (mainly slightly) shorter
>> than /64 prefixes for a large number of devices connected via
>> point-to-point links (e.g. cellulars). The con is extra consumption on
>> IPv6 address space. I think the approach would be useful if many devices
>> would need few additional /64s, but would not compete with flexibility
>> of RFC3633.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Teemu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>