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

Rémi,

I think you miss my point.

Announcing a new ambiguous prefix will be misunderstood by the ISPs
who are ignoring IPv6 as a clear invitation to continue ignoring IPv6
and serve their new customers, badly, using NAT444 indefinitely.

That is my concern here.

Regards
   Brian

On 2010-11-11 16:03, Rémi Després wrote:
> Le 11 nov. 2010 à 10:43, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I don't see this at all.
> No one can have doubt that I help ISPs to plan native IPv6 "service".
> 
> IMHO, ISPs that ask for this prefix would rather interpret the message as:
> "We IETF don't care about your view of your real ISP problems. We use to solve OUR problems, and wish to continue to do so."
> I don't say, it is what you mean, I just say that this interpretation seems to me legitimate.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> NAT444 customers are IMHO less a problem than those that prematurely use IPv6 with partially broken solutions.
> 
> ISP cooperation is needed to cleanly deploy IPv6.
> Having respect for their legitimate requests seems to me the best path toward clean IPv6 everywhere.
> (I don't think we will be stuck if we do what we have to.)
> 
> Regards,
> RD
> 
>> 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