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

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