<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><head></head><body> <div id="yiv1664279892"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div>i read this document with a mixture of astonishment, confusion and horror. it's awful.<br><div><br><div> <div><span>the document is </span>utterly, utterly broken. it has no redeeming or worthwhile qualities at all. <br><div><br>the only thing it's good for is an example of how #not# to do an ip addressing plan based on errors and poorly articulated, mistaken assumptions. it also shows beyond any doubt that itu <span>should not meddle in </span>ip addressing because it has no competence or mandate to get involved in this field. i've already seen far too many deeply flawed itu documents on ipv6, such as the 2009? nav6 study. this one's much, much worse.<br></div></div><div><br><div>it's painfully obvious whoever wrote this junk has no understanding and operational experience of how to design or deploy an ipv6 addressing plan for any non-trivial ipv6 network. the document is not a sound piece of work that makes any sort of technical or engineering sense.<br><div><br><div>the document is riddled with errors - far too many to list. it makes ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact and does not provide any references to justify these claims or let someone check them. i started to write down these flaws and then gave up in disgust. why should i do somebody else's homework for them? conflating ipv6 uptake rates with developed/developing countries is yet another serious failing. these things are completely orthogonal to each other.<br><div><br><div>the unstated assumptions are wrong too.<br><div><br><div>first of all, the notion of "special" ipv6 addressing plans for iot devices is foolish. these don't need to be treated differently and shouldn't be treated differently from anything else that's connected to the internet - at least from an addressing perspective.<br><div><br><div>next, it's beyond absurd to suggest or imply there could be one over-arching addressing plan that can be used and will work perfectly for iot devices in any network or every use case. that's just basic common sense. how you'd do that depends on the actual network and its requirements. for example take smart lightbulbs: an addressing plan for home use wouldn't be suitable for a large building (school, hospital, office block, etc) or for a town's street lights. they'd all have different (subnet) addressing plans that were suited to their specific needs - number of lights, topology, security, planned expansion, architecture(s), link-layer connectivity, redundancy / spofs, budget, latency, bandwidth, interoperability and compatibility with existing systems / networks (if any), access controls and so on. the document doesn't even hint at any of those considerations.<br><div><br><div>the only thing to be done with this document is kill it. kill it with fire. it's too far gone to be fixed or salvaged..<br><div><br>imo, the wg needs to tell itu to stay well away from ip addressing and leave this to the experts who actually build and run ip networks.<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div> </body></html>