Re: [OPS-AREA] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

On 11Nov2010, at 19.18, Rémi Després wrote:

> 
> Le 11 nov. 2010 à 11:28, Joel Jaeggli a écrit :
> 
>> On 11/11/10 11:03 AM, 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".
>> 
>> Ipv4 service is going to get worse. natting it at the carrier level, is
>> inevitable as it is today in many of our enviroments. and as an operator
>> I don't fundamentaly see the difference regarding what addresses are on
>> the inside and outside of the nat, each one is an event horizon. some
>> customers are going to experience breakage, in the form of their
>> existing cpe failing at some point along the way.
>> 
>> As operators we have a fiduciary responsbility to our business, our
>> customers and the oganizations of which we are member's from which we
>> secure addresses, to:
>> 
>> A - use them judiciously
>> B - secure the resource we need to support business growth
>> 
>> I happen to disagree that this prefix is necessary, not because I think
>> that providers shouldn't use nat444 as one of the tools in their
>> arsenal. I didn't support it in the rir's and I don't support it here.
> 
> Fair enough.
> ISPs aren't all the same.

Exactly

> 
> But you won't be hurt if some others use this new /8 prefix.
> 
> My point isn't that all ISPs  should use it.
> It is only that those that ask for it have a valid reason to do so.

We would either have a valid reason for doing so, or be completely psychotic, given the amount of pain that this road has been.
> I se no good reason to refuse it. 
> (The idea that this would demotivate them to offer also IPv6 seems to me insulting to their ability to understand the situation.)

Thank you, Rémi.

> 
>> 
>> It's possible that with sufficient thrust disagreement can be overcome,
>> that's fine but the argumentation in favor of it either in the rir's or
>> here has been strictly unconvincing as far as I'm concerned,  I don't
>> belive that special use ipv4 blocks assigned at this late date are in
>> the interests of existing or future ip address users.
> 
> My impression is that you negate that 10/8 used for both internal and external addresses creates problems with some NATs.
> AFAIK, this is a sad fact, but a fact.

It is sad, and true
> 
> Regards,
> RD
> 
Chris

> 
> 
> 
>> We have enough
>> cruft of that form in ipv4 already.
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
> 

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

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops