This protocol is NOT an end to end protocol, and therefore divides
addresses into 2 groups:
1) Directly addressable hosts, which are limited to the same 4.3B limit as
IP4, the protocol used to transmit it, and limits the use of direct
addresses to aware gateways of the "New IP".
2) Indirectly addressable hosts, which can be addressed ONLY by aware
hosts and networks, which support does not currently exist, unlike IPv6,
which does exist and provides for all hosts to be directly addressed.
It really does not solve the lack of addresses in IPv4, as eventually
even with hacks like this one, the address space will still exhaust, and
lacks simple end to end addressing of every node.
I love IPv6, as it allows direct addressing much like we had in the early
days when it was common to give every machine a public address. Had CIDR
and NAT not been invented, or the threat of the Chinese Academic network
exhausting several /8s in order to directly address all of their hosts, we
would have faced exhaust many years earlier. That network wisely chose to
go to IPv6 instead and has not faced a lack of addresses.
They discussed the small uptake of IPv6. However for the networks that I
manage, IPv6 traffic is approaching 70% of all traffic. Just turning it
on in residental gateways has greatly increased the amount of IPv6
traffic, since most end user devices are already IPv6 ready. Most of the
top email (gmail and others) support IPv6 MX hosts, and most of the
streaming services and video conferencing services, and most of the top
web sites as well support IPv6.
I understand the "if it is not broke, dont fix it" idea. However it is
approaching 10 years from that date in February, 2011 when IPv4 exhausted
when the last 5 /8s were given out in Miami. It is time to start moving
toward IPv6 adoption.
I noticed that no exhaust projections regarding the "New IP" were
discussed. I suspect that is because it is likely to be less than a
couple of decades, since the underlying transport is still IPv4.
IPv6 is here NOW. While many still do not like it, it is currently well
supported in both hardware and software. I did have to "forklift upgrade"
some hardware back in 2008 due to the US Federal Requirement to adopt
IPv6. Even in 2008 everything supports it, including all major operating
systems. This New IP would have to be developed, tested and then placed
into operating systems, unlike IPv6 which is already here and currently
being used by millions of hosts. For most networks, it is simply turning
it on, or unblocking IPv6, since it is enabled by default. Considering
the slow upgrade cycle, it might take a very long time before "New IP" is
even ready.
Collisions in the RFC1918 space between merged organizations is also a big
cost that those remaining on IPv4 incur. With IPv6, there is no
collisions. Getting rid of these tunnels for intra company communication
has cured many of my headaches.
While it is clear that there are many here at ARIN that disagree with me,
I think that ARIN should continue to adopt strong policies to promote
IPv6, so that we all can further reduce costs by turning off IPv4 sooner
rather than later. Many hacks including CGnat have large costs that can be
avoided by such a move, and if timing is right, you might even be able to
recover some funds by selling your excess IPv4 to those who insist on
staying IPv4 only.
IPv4 holdouts need to realize that they are passing on costs to many other
networks that must maintain IPv4 ability because of their choice to avoid
IPv6. Everyones cost will drop with the use of only one protocol, and due
to the address limits in IPv4, it is clear that only IPv6 can be the long
term answer. It even reduces costs here at ARIN, as there are fewer
transactions, since most orgs get their block and are then done for a very
long time. Transfers alone must take a lot of staff time.
For some I am preaching to the choir. Others are likely mad for again
bringing up IPv6 which they seem to actively avoid. It is clear,
eventually the shear lack of addresses in IPv4 will be seen, and like
those other conserving measures like CIDR and NAT, even things like this
will not be able to avoid the hard limit of addresses in IPv4. To the
holdouts, please consider that you are passing on costs larger than your
savings to the collective community by your decision to avoid IPv4.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Here is a balanced discussion of the "New IP" idea (and it is just as idea at
this point, not an actual protocol):
Dr. Richard Li, of Futurewei Technologies and key proponent of Huawei’s “New
IP” proposal, and Andrew Sullivan, the President and CEO of the Internet
Society. IGP’s Dr. Milton Mueller moderates
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/09/23/what-is-the-future-of-internet-architecture/
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Anita N
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 9:52 AM
To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2:
Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of
ARIN-2019-16
I have to chime in (not as part of the AC) that the protocol below is beyond
insidious!
On Oct 23, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
Me, (okay, this is after a beer or two tonight) I was just having a
discussion with some people the other night, and we were discussing
the idea that a new protocol might even roll out at this rate before
IPv6 is universally adopted...
Hi Mike,
You aren't the only one discussing a new protocol, one that contains
features beyond more addresses which would provide incentive for
deployment, as IPv6 notably failed to provide. Not that I support the attempt
below.
https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an
-analy sis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/
Regards,
Mike
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
