[AusNOG] RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link"

[Matt Perkins]

I use z-wave home automation technology in my home. it's not IP but it's conceivable that a like ipv6 based technology will exist in the future. I currently have a addressable device in every power point socket ,every down light, every light switch , multiple temperature sensors throughout ,every blind , every door PIR's in every room, smoke detectors, water leak detectors and the aircon.

IPv4 has served us for 25ish years in the mainstream. what will we have in 2050. Thats without going into all the allocation systems and protocol rules besides. 

I think the current recommendations are on target. 

matt



> On 2 Jul 2014, at 9:52 pm, Shannon Gernyi <shannon.gernyi at xsv.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Excuse my brevity.
> 
> A lot of the IPv6 features rely on one having a /64 subnet. SLAAC (for all intents, a necessity at home) relies on the subnet being a /64 for one, due to the way local addresses are generated, for example.
> 
> Happy to be corrected on this by anyone smarter than yours truly :)
> 
> Sent from my Samsung GALAXY S5 on the Telstra 4G network
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Joseph Goldman 
> Date:2014/07/02 21:32 (GMT+10:00) 
> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net 
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link" 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Going a bit off-topic, towards IPv6 in general as I'm still catching 
> up on the standards of use for IPv6, but I am yet to understand the 
> reason for recommendations to give such large blocks to customers?
> 
> You talk about a /64 being handed out to customers, even this I found 
> exceptionally large for a home, which even with smart devices becoming 
> the norm would you say its likely to reach 100 needed IP's? let alone 
> thousands?
> 
> You go on to say other RFC's are even trying to recommend /56's, or 
> even /48 to be better by your own personal opinion. Why so large? Why 
> not /96's or even smaller?
> 
> I'm in no way knocking the idea, I am genuinely curious as to the 
> reasons behind the recommendations.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> Joe
> 
> On 02/07/14 21:14, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The following recently published RFC might be of interest to people on this list.
> >
> > RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link"
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278
> >
> > Earlier versions of the 3GPP standards (i.e., basically mobile phone data standards) didn't recognise or realise that smartphones would also be able to temporarily become IP routers/Wifi hotspots, and therefore didn't specify DHCPv6-PD. This RFC describes how to take a /64 from the phone to carrier link and use it/share it with the phone's Wifi LAN interface when the phone is acting as an IPv6 router. It may seem a bit obscure, however it provides some examples of how IPv6's capabilities can be used to novelly overcome this limitation. It certainly isn't a recommendation to give a customer a single /64 rather than many of them (i.e., as per RFC6177, a /56, or better IMO, a /48 as per the considerations in RFC3177), but it does show how that can be worked around with some limitations.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mark.
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20140703/5b909f4a/attachment.html>