[ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT

Hi,

I basically agree with Jan.

I will say that the ITU friends contributing to this document need to come to the IETF and the RIR meetings to openly discuss and learn about the reality about operating IPv6 and IoT networks.

In short the document makes no sense at all and is plenty of errors even in the way some notation, protocol names and references are used.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan at go6.si>
Fecha: martes, 15 de mayo de 2018, 13:55
Para: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT

    On 07/03/2018 08:19, Jetten Raymond wrote:
    > https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/documents/itu-ipv6refmodel
    > 
    > We kindly invite you to provide feedback and comments on the contents of 
    > this document via this mailing list or of course the RIPE Forum web 
    > interface. 
    
    Dear RIPE Community and Document Proposer,
    
    First of all, for a full disclosure - I'm writing this review in my own 
    personal capacity as a long time IPv6 advocate and member of the RIPE 
    community. My views and comments do not necessarily represent the views 
    of my employer.
    
    Reading through this document raised a few points in my minds, which are 
    elaborated below:
    
    - Absence of problem statement.
    
    Technical documents normally identify the problem they're trying to 
    address. Do we really have a problem, what is that problem, and what are 
    we trying to solve? Is the addressing of IoT devices an actual issue 
    anyone has?
    
    - No clear requirements
    
    If a problem is defined, what are the requirements for any solution? 
    What is the scope of the document, and what is the framework under 
    discussion.
    
    - Lack of documented operational experience or good practice
    
    What is the best current operational practice for this problem, or has 
    an experimental environment involving many hundreds of devices 
    identified a need for this solution? If neither is the case, what is the 
    evidence that a prescribed solution with neither operational nor 
    experimental experience would work as planned?
    
    - Factual errors
    
    There are several errors in the document, some of them were already 
    pointed out and explained by Sander Steffann in his review.
    
    - Misunderstanding of how IPv6 addressing policy works
    
    A general reality is that network operators determine their IPv6 
    addressing plans depending on the type of network they are building and 
    the purpose. Whilst it's possible to define certain best practices that 
    can apply, these are invariably based on operational experience and are 
    not prescriptive (i.e. 'bottom up' rather than 'top down'). IoT devices 
    will be utilised in many different ways and in different types of 
    networks, and whilst there may be merit in starting to think about IPv6 
    addressing plans for IoT, these should be formulated based on the 
    collective experience of multiple diverse network operators.
    
    - What is the ITU's motivation for doing this?
    
    Internet standards were developed by organisations involved with its 
    operation, and best practices evolved out of their direct operational 
    experience. The network operator communities (e.g. RIPE) are therefore 
    best placed to understand, define and implement IPv6 addressing plans 
    for IoT devices.
    
    Other interested organisations including the ITU are of course 
    encouraged to participate in this process, raise issues of concern to 
    their communities, and contribute to the best current operational 
    practice, but should not seek to prescribe solutions unilaterally.
    
    Personally, I feel the purpose of this proposal is unclear, and there is 
    limited value in further discussion of this document for the various 
    reasons described above.
    
    I would be open to review a future version of this document from SG20 
    that will take into account all the above concerns.
    
    Best regards, Jan Žorž
    
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.