This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Thu May 24 09:18:14 CEST 2018
Some comments: "Editor notes: there are a large number of ipv4-ipv6 transition and migration strategies: Teredo, 6to4, etc. " I'd just like to point out that Teredo and 6to4 aren't migration strategies, they were basically a way to beta-test the technology. Please do not mention them, we're way past beta testing of IPv6. Mention things like 6RD, MAP, NAT64, ds.lite etc. I still see people thinking 6to4 is something that should be deployed today. RFC3068 is already obsoleted by RFC7526 (a 2015 RFC). I also have to mirror Patrik Fältströms concerns regarding bringing in all the limitations of IPv4 into the IPv6 addressing plan. With ethertype based vlans, one doesn't even have to have IPv6 networks in the same broadcast domain as IPv4, while still providing dual stack to end devices. I have run into people who have done the 1:1 mapping of IPv4 and IPv6 networks, and they resist doing new things with "oh, that doesn't fit my IPv6 adressing plan, I don't have enough IPv6 addresses to do that". This makes me worry about the long term. This document seems to have been written with a world view from 2012-2014, and not taking into account things that have happened since, operational experience from deployment, etc. 6to4 and teredo is nowadays default off in all operating systems (from having being default on in Windows for instance). Writings such as "/56 allocations are likely to become a mainstream practice for individual end-users (homes)", BBF TR-101 from 2010 already recommends /56 for DHCPv6-PD size to residential customers. I think my summary of the document is "I would like to see much less IPv4 thinking in it". -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]