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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Erik,

On 11Nov2010, at 14.13, Erik Kline 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.
> 
Interesting hypothesis, but seems to me to be a bit of A=B, C=D A=D?  Everyone who is asking for this is running as fast as they can to get v6 deployed.  Sometimes reality is messier than a hypothesis

> 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".

Glad you used BAU = IPv6 is our BAU engineering and product model.  However, some operators have infrastructure that is a bit longer in the tooth than others....  There are rules of physics, economics, and support systems.  

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

So, what animal did you have in mind for us, a sloth?  

> 
> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM225RAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/DpEIAInK9tQsTxLMjOEM68R36pyw
nYlv8n7rbY/Q/TIyDxjzBr0Z3tHYRnzA2ATVVNRIWNm+K31ROsq8LUUY6gQvKrJv
lZRBCnKhKi+2XmcfaWf5kfZVwE9wjtEh6E02FSE/lc7usJ+sl2wsGvglEur/IP3b
76piaDVm38gDeY59myCpCFdqMFyzeRIBUo1SVHl2kIuUaI7zTQt5ygS+7d6GW5TG
EQodM8BJMttNTCxhDb79YtGer5t6td2+uZ1inqjNumXoqiIK/ghvDwrPwJMTg8U3
rsChKYXMxDALH1Ar32LeRrZQbqL6t2G+YxD+tf+6abKIOfjast5/V4UetAZ6gPU=
=hEtQ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM23BGAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/y98IAJbq3DtZW58CNBuQMtqyVdFr
rWnb3peQnwXe8jedlllZWqeJ3KDF0nx2uBYXVQX7QakxvHO/xlWejN+Le7XYwb4H
k8NlK0XwPMC4sZxQDq8Jh5X63iPMrFEl+GC0h9DNmvQ5jF8IuWnaCgDQE7BSAnSJ
M+gQHWbZzD/yCxl0+MhE3jvCL1xFN4YpzPPGXUFtr9h/eZ/8rANegRgLHXNpA4Ur
icAhza9yA7RCdLnWZHQpktmrGmyIOoHwkOUQo5G/T8ChV6RvwsYDndZzrm3F8Xzf
fa6Sa5CLnCH2UvOEmC+SkgP02pXl00X7J7kUlGoYEp4moEemZJxY889t/6LFQt0=
=Alp6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area