[ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT

On 07/03/2018 08:19, Jetten Raymond wrote:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/documents/itu-ipv6refmodel
> 
> We kindly invite you to provide feedback and comments on the contents of 
> this document via this mailing list or of course the RIPE Forum web 
> interface. 

Dear RIPE Community and Document Proposer,

First of all, for a full disclosure - I'm writing this review in my own 
personal capacity as a long time IPv6 advocate and member of the RIPE 
community. My views and comments do not necessarily represent the views 
of my employer.

Reading through this document raised a few points in my minds, which are 
elaborated below:

- Absence of problem statement.

Technical documents normally identify the problem they're trying to 
address. Do we really have a problem, what is that problem, and what are 
we trying to solve? Is the addressing of IoT devices an actual issue 
anyone has?

- No clear requirements

If a problem is defined, what are the requirements for any solution? 
What is the scope of the document, and what is the framework under 
discussion.

- Lack of documented operational experience or good practice

What is the best current operational practice for this problem, or has 
an experimental environment involving many hundreds of devices 
identified a need for this solution? If neither is the case, what is the 
evidence that a prescribed solution with neither operational nor 
experimental experience would work as planned?

- Factual errors

There are several errors in the document, some of them were already 
pointed out and explained by Sander Steffann in his review.

- Misunderstanding of how IPv6 addressing policy works

A general reality is that network operators determine their IPv6 
addressing plans depending on the type of network they are building and 
the purpose. Whilst it's possible to define certain best practices that 
can apply, these are invariably based on operational experience and are 
not prescriptive (i.e. 'bottom up' rather than 'top down'). IoT devices 
will be utilised in many different ways and in different types of 
networks, and whilst there may be merit in starting to think about IPv6 
addressing plans for IoT, these should be formulated based on the 
collective experience of multiple diverse network operators.

- What is the ITU's motivation for doing this?

Internet standards were developed by organisations involved with its 
operation, and best practices evolved out of their direct operational 
experience. The network operator communities (e.g. RIPE) are therefore 
best placed to understand, define and implement IPv6 addressing plans 
for IoT devices.

Other interested organisations including the ITU are of course 
encouraged to participate in this process, raise issues of concern to 
their communities, and contribute to the best current operational 
practice, but should not seek to prescribe solutions unilaterally.

Personally, I feel the purpose of this proposal is unclear, and there is 
limited value in further discussion of this document for the various 
reasons described above.

I would be open to review a future version of this document from SG20 
that will take into account all the above concerns.

Best regards, Jan Žorž



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3976 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20180515/7141d18d/attachment.p7s>