<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Oct 14, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 10/14/10 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:5F0B969F-DBD9-446F-954E-1CC566E1EBB1@delong.com" type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> On 10/14/10 11:06 PM,
Owen DeLong wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:6E489EC5-BE01-46E6-AA63-F7FF1F89303F@delong.com" type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:02
AM, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt
0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>If you can get 6rd to fit in single /16,
then, perhaps we could consider allowing it to
be permanent.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, if ~3,000 ARIN members deploy 6rd
/24s, then, you're talking about the vast
majority of an entire /12 just in the ARIN
region.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why not we make it a /28, and thus give the
customer a /60? The customer still gets 16 subnets
for his house, and when 6rd goes away (since, as
you point out there are other disadvantages beyond
address space use compared to native IPv6), then
the subnet will be /56 (since, following your
reasoning, that is what competitors with native
IPv6 access will be providing).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
/60s are horrible... They completely stifle any ability
for the customer to do PD-based topology</div>
<div>within the site.</div>
</blockquote>
I think you are assuming what the PD-based topology
mechanisms are going to be. They haven't really been
designed, and certainly haven't been coded and shipped yet.
All we are doing at this point is providing a playing field.
Within that field:<br>
<br>
/60 is an *enormous* improvement over /64. Night and day.<br>
<br>
/56 is certainly better than /60, but not night and day as
with /64 and /60. <br>
<br>
The point here is that if we design home routing and PD for
2^4 subnets, it's not hard to take that and extend it for
2^8 or 2^16. Not so if you are starting with 2^1.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
With all due respect, I must strongly disagree here. Whatever we
decide here will likely impact and set the standards by which
home gateways are designed going forward.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We agree that /64 is a non-starter.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I strongly believe that the target should be /48. </div>
</blockquote>
Aren't ARIN's own guidelines:<br>
<br>
"/56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets over
the next 5 years."<br>
<br></div></blockquote>Yes. That's a guideline that was passed early on. In fact, it's one I supported at the time.</div><div><br></div><div>We all make mistakes as we learn. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
But I suppose you will explain to me why that text doesn't say what
I think it says.<br>
<br></div></blockquote>Nope... It says what you think it says. However, note also that the IETF recommendation</div><div>is /48 and that ARIN does allow for /48 to all end sites regardless of size.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
In any case, based even on what I am hearing from folks with
large-scale native plans in place, I wouldn't hold my breadth that
your target will be reached. <br>
<br></div></blockquote>Well... I think the largest end-user base on IPv6 today (outside of some private cable networks in Japan) is giving any customer that requests one a /48.</div><div><br></div><div>It's at least a start.</div><div><br></div><div>You really should have a conversation with Tony Hain about the reasons he thinks /56 is a bad idea.</div><div>He makes a pretty compelling case.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:5F0B969F-DBD9-446F-954E-1CC566E1EBB1@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>That 6rd has such terrible deficiencies in its use of address
space that we cannot afford /48 and therefore must compromise to
/56.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Further compromising to /60 runs the risk of that becoming a
de facto industry standard which will potentially be very
difficult to overcome.</div>
</blockquote>
You are worried about /60 when the real worry is /64. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm worried about both /60 and /64.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:5F0B969F-DBD9-446F-954E-1CC566E1EBB1@delong.com" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You asked me to tell you if you are contradicting someone
from your organization... You are contradicting Tony</div>
<div>Hain here, or, at least my understanding of what Tony has
been saying.</div>
</blockquote>
Thanks for the heads up.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5F0B969F-DBD9-446F-954E-1CC566E1EBB1@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Consumer products will
be designed to operate within the lowest common denominator
of the above. If we can make that /60 vs. /64, that's a big
win and we might see some potential for upsell into /56 for
"bigger home networks". But, if we have to do a ton of work
to make networks work within a single /64 anyway, once we
have done that, it's hard to argue for supporting multiple
subnets as well. I'm trying to avoid having to do the work
at all for /64, but that can only happen if I know the
minimum number of subnets in the home is greater than 1. <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That is, indeed, the source of my concern. If consumer products
are developed only to the lowest common denominator,</div>
<div>we risk establishing /60 as that point. /56 is bad enough. As
I have said, we should strongly encourage /48 as the</div>
<div>standard around which development occurs while recognizing
/56 as a necessary limitation of 6rd.</div>
</blockquote>
/60 could at least have the same type of design as /56 and operate
within both with different scaling levels. Supporting /64, even for
the simple day one task of a guest and local SSID, is so radically
different that this couldn't happen. <br>
<br></div></blockquote>I have never supported /64. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to that.</div><div><br></div><div>For some time, now, I have advocated /48. In this conversation I've accepted the reality that /48s are not feasible</div><div>with 6rd due to the incredible waste in 6rd addressing. As such, I think /56 is the best available compromise for</div><div>6rd.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
There is step function of complexity at /64. <br>
<br></div></blockquote>No argument. I've NEVER supported the idea of /64 for end sites.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:5F0B969F-DBD9-446F-954E-1CC566E1EBB1@delong.com" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't think we are disagreeing here, and I don't think
anyone is advocating /64s. The AC has approved and forwarded</div>
<div>to last call policy which enables /56s for 6rd, but,
encourages treating those as temporary and transitional in
nature.</div>
<div>I think this is the best compromise.</div>
</blockquote>
I'm not going to stand in the way of /24 for 6rd, but if it comes
with a ton of strings attached, I'd rather see a less encumbered
/28. <br>
<br></div></blockquote>I won't support any size prefix less encumbered than the current draft policy sent to last call by the AC.</div><div>The encumbrances stated are due to the nature of 6rd and not the prefix size.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>