There's a few issues issues with this proposal that cause me to object to it:
- The problem statement reads that the IoT industry needs to assign IPv6 address space to non-electronic items, which makes routing the IP space to these devices impossible. It also would not meet the "demonstrated need" condition for resource applications.
- Number 2 under the Proposed Policy Solution states, "An IoT Object will be counted as a normal single host while evaluating subsequent allocation size for IoT services". The number of addresses in a /64 is 20 digits long. Given that there are approximately 4.29 billion /64 subnets within a /32 supernet, assigning a /64 to every IoT device and non-electrical item would lead to an inefficient utilization of IP address space. This approach may result in a significant waste of available IPv6 address resources, regardless of the number of /32 prefixes available.
- As a few others have identified, IP space is not designed for globally unique identification methods of non-electronic devices. They are designed for connectivity and communication between devices. Using IP space for purposes which it is not designed should not (in my view) be written into policy.
It would be a good idea to form a working group on IoT-related topics and the BoF is an excellent start and even possibly a guideline on the delegation of IPv6 space for IoT-related purposes, however I wouldn't consider writing it into policy.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
