Re: [OPSAWG] [v6ops] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

A nit here, but the ask is for a /10.


On 11Nov2010, at 14.22, Soininen, Jonne (NSN-FI/Espoo) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to add a different perspective. We basically have seven /8s left
> (plus the five that will be given directly to the RIRs when we come down to
> that number). I think the world expects everybody to be as responsible as
> possible with those last available /8s.
> 
> Taking a /8 to RFC1918bis space means that it is away from global address
> space use. If we want to do that we have to be really, really sure this is
> the right thing to do. IETF would really have to have strong consensus on
> it.
> 
> I seriously doubt we can converge to any consensus before the IANA pool is
> empty. 
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne.
> 
> 
> On 11/11/10 5:13 AM, "ext Erik Kline" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jonne Soininen
> Nokia Siemens Networks
> 
> Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
> E-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area