[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.

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