Re: /27 the new /24

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Memory footprint is still an issue in lots of things like ESP8266 (which doesn’t yet support IPv6, but hopefully will 
soon).

Not everything is a cell phone or larger. There are lots of cool new things coming out in the SoC world where you’ve 
got a micro controller, GPIOs, CAN, SPI, WiFi, and more all in a single chip or module.

Another example (also currently IPv4 only, but hopefully that will get fixed) is particle.io.

These are $10-$20 (and sometimes even less) complete systems with very small memories and very low power consumption 
which are great for deploying things like remote sensors and the like.

Owen

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
>
> Stefann,
>
> You're right. I remember hearing rumblings of vendors requesting this change, mostly because embedded processors of 
> the time had difficulty performing well with IPv6. I see that in 2011 rfc6434 lowered IPSec from "must" to "should". 
> Nevertheless, plenty of products produced before 2011 included IPSec and the vast majority of IPv6-capable nodes on 
> the Internet have it today. Performance is no longer an issue. 
>
> -mel beckman
>
> > On Oct 4, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Op 4 okt. 2015, om 16:52 heeft Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> het volgende geschreven:
> > >
> > > If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to support any other mandatory IPv6 
> > > specification, such as RA.
> >
> > I think you're still looking at an old version of the IPv6 Node Requirements. Check 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6434#section-11, specifically this bit:
> >
> > """
> > Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the key management approach of IKE.  This document 
> > updates that recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes.
> > """
> >
> > This was published in December 2011.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sander