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

Dear WG,

> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/documents/itu-ipv6refmodel

I would like to thank SG20 for the liaison statement and the opportunity
to comment on Draft Recommendation Y.IPv6RefModel "Reference model of IPv6
subnet addressing plan for Internet of things deployment" from Q3/20
e-meeting December 2017.

The document suggests an "optional reference model of an IPv6 addressing
plan for Internet of things (IoT) deployment by smart cities, public
administrations and companies". However, I am missing any identification
of the special needs of these target audiences, any explanation of
specific needs of "IoT" (with that being resollved per ITU-T Y.2060
as a "global infrastructure"), or the benefits of a unified addressing plan
at all.  The draft document lacks precision in terminology (e.g., it
talks about "routing prefixes" rather than "address space").
The document refers to IETF "standards" dealing with "IoT", but fails
to give an explanation for a need for an addressing plan arising from
the use or deployment of those standards/protocols. In
addition, there is no reason given why SG20 would be the appropriate venue
for this activity, rather than the IETF or the RIRs and their attached
operator communities.

Section 7 "Preventing a New Digital Divide" suggests that the lack of
a reference model for an addressing plan was detrimental to IPv6
deployment, probably based on region - without giving supporting
facts.  Also, the plans proposed later would not be sufficient to
justify address assignments (or allocations) beyond those sizes
easily available today, nor is there any support for an argument
that "shortage of v6 addresses" would be an obstacle for deployment.
The plans also do not help in utilizing the address space and deploying
real v6 networks (see below).

Section 8 adds "smart buildings" to the target audience without further
explanation. The section then lists a number of IPv6 deployments,
criteria for inclusion in the list being unclear. There is also no link
the the draft document, neither by those examples having informed
the proposed plans, nor by the the proposed plans having been
instrumental in the operational reality of any of the examples.

Section 9 does not correctly represent the role of RIRs and LIRs (or NIRs, where
applicable).

The plans in section 11, finally, deal far more with the "non IoT" parts
of the network (DMZ, servers, regular LAN) without justifying the
recommendations based on operational experience.  Also, while there is
a postulated size for the address space for "IoT", the size and
need is not justified, nor is there any inner differentiation for
systems or objects in the "IoT" category.  Assigning addresses
per building or floor is already outdated in today's networks.

In my view, the document clearly fails to motivate the need for
a reference model for an addressing plan and any special role
for "IoT" in any such plan (read: there is no problem statement).
Therefore, it is impossible to evaluate the proposed solutions.
That said, the proposed plans are heavily encumbered by an
unmotivated "consistency" with IPv4 addressing.

-Peter

-- 
Peter Koch              |                          |          pk at DENIC.DE
DENIC eG                |                          |       +49 69 27235-0
Kaiserstraße 75-77      |                          |
60329 Frankfurt am Main |                          | https://www.DENIC.DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eingetr. Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main
Vorstand: Helga Krüger, Martin Küchenthal, Andreas Musielak, Dr. Jörg Schweiger
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller