Anno domini 2017 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ scripsit: > Fully agree. I’ve also expressed my concern about this being the wrong way.
> I’ve also discussed in private with the author regarding several issues, > including how wrong is having a text that mention something like /80. From > RFC7136: [...] So, for shooting myself into my own foot (to steal your wording): I'm inclined to agree with you. After reading the IA I'm unsure wether the prefix length approach is leading to the best solution of this problem. I thought on this a while and basicly came up with similar ideas to yours but had a hard time putting it into words. So whatever journey this proposal will have from here on, at least we got into a discussion about an issue we at least can agree on exists. :) > Now, what happens if the assignment is not /64, but several /64 for each > “machine”, as being suggested by new IETF work? > > For example, the servers and employee computers in a company that has > received a /48 IPv6 PI, will be in this case. They may decide to allocate a > single /64 for each VLAN (computers may be from the company or from > employees, such as cellular phones, tablets, laptops), but maybe they prefer > to allocate a /64 for each computer … and may be in the future several /64 > for each computer, because they are running virtual machines in different > VLANs. > > I suggested several options, for example trying to adjust the definition of > “infrastructure”, “assign”, or even other choices such as: > > The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations. An > exception to this will be managed services to third parties or point to point > links, using the PI owner, own managed infrastructure; in that case, will not > be subjected to registration, and it will not be considered as a > sub-assignment, regardless size of the addressing space being used for those > services (from a single address to multiple /64). An example of this will be > a company offering managed networking services to SMEs to connect > user-devices or even servers, such as: Users in public hot spots, employees > or guest SSIDs or VPNs or VLANs or LAN segments in organizations, servers in > a data centre. (SMEs are Small and medium-sized enterprises?) That would be something I'd be rather fine with. It solves the problems people faced in a more general way. I opens up some use cases and scenarios - which I tried to avoid to keep the scope of this discussion limited - but might be a nifty solution to clear these problems once and for all. This will however touch the PI/PA question as it opens up the usage of PI space for hosting providers and the like which I was trying to avoid, too. > or > > Within the context of this policy, assignments not done to end-sites by means > of point-to-point links are not considered sub-assignments. That would be bit to vague for my taste. > I know is not neither of those are perfect, and may not work, but it may be a > starting point for some more discussion. > And last idea (shooting to my own foot, as original author of the IPv6 PI > policy proposal) … Do we really need anymore a different rule for IPv6 PA and > IPv6 PI ???? That in particular was a subject I tried to avoid touching ;-) Best Max -- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
