Re: Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

Hypothesis: Anything meant to extend the usefulness of IPv4 that does
not /simultaneously put immense pressure on the thousands of big and
small things that block IPv6 deployment/ will not result in IPv6
readiness nor IPv6 deployment.

It may extend the life of IPv4, giving more time for the blocking
elements to become more IPv6-ready, but how will this time be
different from the status quo for the last 10+ years?  The only thing
that could possibly be different is that the free blocks will actually
be gone by the end of 2011.  But if that doesn't work, it's impossible
for me to see how these sorts of proposals won't result in anything
other than "business as usual".

Most animals are motivated to either move toward pleasure or away from
pain.  Align incentives, or readjust expectations, accordingly.

On 11 November 2010 11:43, Brian E Carpenter
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> I know that some believe that purposely breaking the IPv4 service could be a way to promote IPv6.
>
> I don't believe that, and I don't doubt the good intentions of the
> people proposing this - I've seen too much of them in v6 working groups
> for that. The problem is elsewhere: this would be a very strong message
> to ISPs that are *not* actively planning v6 support that here is a way
> to evade the issue for many more years. So we end up with a bigger
> legacy of customers stuck behind NAT444 and ISPs that have no intention
> to move forward.
>
> I would like to be proved wrong.
>
> Regards
>   Brian
>
> On 2010-11-11 15:30, Rémi Després wrote:
>> Hi, Ron,
>>
>>
>> Le 9 nov. 2010 à 13:26, Ronald Bonica a écrit :
>>> I am having a strange sense of déjà vu. About two years ago, we saw another proposal to allocate a /8 for private use to support another transition mechanism. We concluded:
>>>
>>> - that we didn't have a /8 to spare
>>
>> - Allocating a /8 to ISPs, while it is still feasible, would only slightly modify the date at which IPv4 prefixes er exhausted, not a big deal.
>>
>>> - that a /8 wouldn't be enough, anyway
>>
>> - ISPs already operate several parallel instances of 10/8 clouds, so that, although a /7 would be more generous than better a /8, a new /8 is enough to replace current 10/8's by a prefix private sites don't uses internally.
>>
>> The known reason why ISPs have problems if they assign 10/8's is that some NAT44s:
>>  . assign 10/8's for internal use
>>  . cannot work with identical internal and external address spaces
>>
>> CONCLUSION:
>> Assigning a new /8 to ISPs so that they can replace 10/8:
>> - is easy to do
>> - has negligible effect on the transition schedule
>> - does solve a real problem
>> It should, in view of this analysis above, be highly recommended by IETF
>>
>> I know that some believe that purposely breaking the IPv4 service could be a way to promote IPv6.
>> IMHO, their time would be better spent working to eliminate IPv6 limitations than militating against IPv4 deserved QoS.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> RD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, the proposal was abandoned. I wonder if we are not in the exact same place today.
>>>
>>> Maybe the equation would be changed if we could make do with a /16, but it appears that a /16 wouldn't help.
>>>
>>>                                           Ron
>>>                                           <speaking as individual contributor>
>>>
>>> BTW, the LISP WG is talking about asking for a prefix for a very similar reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>>>> Of james woodyatt
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:50 PM
>>>> To: IPv6 Operations; [email protected]; [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Heads up
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 20:24 , Erik Kline wrote:
>>>>> Didn't Akira Nakagawa/KDDI present something like this a few meetings
>>>> ago?  I can't recall clearly...
>>>>
>>>> It was in Chicago, if I recall correctly.  At which point Tony Hain
>>>> joked that we should direct IANA to just turn over the entire remaining
>>>> free pool for that use.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'd prefer to take Tony's suggestion as a serious proposal.
>>>> A single /8 isn't enough, is it?  For NAT444 to be a really workable
>>>> architecture, we've got to give over enough addresses that service
>>>> providers can handle at least a hundred million subscriber addresses in
>>>> the same address realm, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> james woodyatt <[email protected]>
>>>> member of technical staff, communications engineering
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops