<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>So much that you rolled it out at home today :P<br>
<br>
<div>Kindest Regards,</div>
Nathan Brookfield
<div><br>
<div>Chief Executive Officer</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 13pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div>Web: <a href="http://simtronic.com.au">http://simtronic.com.au</a></div>
<div>Phone: 1300 592 330</div>
<div>Fax: (02) 4749 4950</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On 3 Jul 2014, at 10:23, "Joseph Goldman" <<a href="mailto:joe@apcs.com.au">joe@apcs.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><span>Thanks to you for responding after I completely hijacked your thread :), and to others on list for contributing to the discussion, Good post from Karl Auer should get a mention too!</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>I enjoyed reading it and it has revamped my motivation for IPv6 deployment!</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>On 03/07/14 07:43, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>----- Original Message -----</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: Joseph Goldman <<a href="mailto:joe@apcs.com.au">joe@apcs.com.au</a>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc:</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2014 9:31 PM</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link"</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Hi Mark,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> Going a bit off-topic, towards IPv6 in general as I'm still catching</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>up on the standards of use for IPv6, but I am yet to understand the</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>reason for recommendations to give such large blocks to customers?</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> You talk about a /64 being handed out to customers, even this I found</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>exceptionally large for a home, which even with smart devices becoming</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>the norm would you say its likely to reach 100 needed IP's? let alone</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>thousands?</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> </span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>This question has come up often enough that an IETF Internet Draft is being written on the topic (I found out about the rational from the book "IPv6: The New Internet Protocol (2nd Edition)" by Christian Huitema. That being said,
I'd already had experience with other protocols that had "excessively large" subnets, such as IPX.)</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>"Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing"</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-why64-01">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-why64-01</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Ever thought about why MAC addresses are so big? Their primary function is to uniquely identify interfaces/hosts on a single link, and when the decision was made, the number of hosts on an Ethernet segment was limited to 1000.
So a 10 bit rather than 48 bit address would have done the job. So in hind sight, has it and how useful has it been that they are in the order of 38 bits or 274 877 906 944 times larger than they actually needed to be? Unlike IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, we don't
even both trying to recycle them - we just through them away when we through away the network card or device it is part of!</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Somebody did write up a paper on why they chose 48 bit addresses, which also has some good discussion about addressing in general e.g., flat verses hierarchical address schemes. (I in particular like the description of a route
as being a 'hint' about the destination existing - the destination might not exist when the packet actually arrives, despite what the series of 'hints' have said along the path the packet has taken.)</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>"48-bit Absolute Internet and Ethernet Host Numbers"</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://ethernethistory.typepad.com/papers/HostNumbers.pdf">http://ethernethistory.typepad.com/papers/HostNumbers.pdf</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> You go on to say other RFC's are even trying to recommend /56's, or</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>even /48 to be better by your own personal opinion. Why so large? Why</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>not /96's or even smaller?</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> </span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Because constantly 'right sizing' address assignment costs time and effort. This has been an unavoidable cost in IPv4, because the address space wasn't big enough in the first place for what IPv4 has ended up being used for. Vint
Cerf himself has said they thought they were building network for a research project - "We assumed that national scale networks were</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>expensive so there would not be too many of them."</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-April/020488.html">http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-April/020488.html</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>IPv6 could be seen as the first Internet Protocol designed to properly solve the world-wide Internet problem (technically CLNS would have too, but it had some drawbacks the IETF weren't happy with - variable length addressing probably
being the major one, although it also had a Not Invented Here problem.) IPv4 was never meant to be used to build the Internet we have today, and has only been able to be used to do so by a series of neat, and not so neat hacks - Classes, Subnets, Variable
Length Subnets/CIDR and then 1:Many NAT.</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> I'm in no way knocking the idea, I am genuinely curious as to the</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>reasons behind the recommendations.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Thanks in advance!</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Joe</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>On 02/07/14 21:14, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> Hi,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> The following recently published RFC might be of interest to people on this</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>list.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link"</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> Earlier versions of the 3GPP standards (i.e., basically mobile phone data</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>standards) didn't recognise or realise that smartphones would also be able</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>to temporarily become IP routers/Wifi hotspots, and therefore didn't specify</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>DHCPv6-PD. This RFC describes how to take a /64 from the phone to carrier link</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>and use it/share it with the phone's Wifi LAN interface when the phone is</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>acting as an IPv6 router. It may seem a bit obscure, however it provides some</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>examples of how IPv6's capabilities can be used to novelly overcome this</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>limitation. It certainly isn't a recommendation to give a customer a single</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>/64 rather than many of them (i.e., as per RFC6177, a /56, or better IMO, a /48</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>as per the considerations in RFC3177), but it does show how that can be worked</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>around with some limitations.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> Regards,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> Mark.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> _______________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> AusNOG mailing list</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>AusNOG mailing list</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>AusNOG mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a></span><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>