> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Akira Nakagawa > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 6:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Int-area] ISP Shared Address QA > > > All, > > This is Akira Nakagawa, Tokyo. > > Thank you very much for giving me a lot of comments at the presentation > in > Minneapolis. > > I'll try to reply all of them as follows, but if there are my > misunderstands > and/or something I don't answer, reply to this ML again, please. > > > > > (Q1) This proposal leads extending the life of IPv4, so IPv6 will not > deploy. > > (A1) No, our goal is IPv6. NAT444 + Shared Address is designed for the > co- > existing period. The purpose of this network is to access from IPv6 > enabled > network to remaining IPv4 network.
I don't see how IPv6 is used in the NAT444+shared address model. You say "No" above to "this proposal extends the life of IPv4". I think you mean "Yes" to that part. > (Q2) Size of Shared Address is too small for operators who need around > /8*10 > or more. > > (A2) We haven't defined the size of Shared Address, but NAT444 + ISP > Shared > Address Model is not designed for them. Such big operators should > choose > other network model. > > > > > (Q3) Persuading one company to get Global Address and share it. > > (A3) No, it loses registry system and if some accidents happen with > this > address block, the company has to take responsibility. If some troubles > happen, the company may stop sharing the address block. To avoid this, > we need to define new address block so that every ISP can use and > share. > > > > > (Q4) Possible to use 240/4 in ISP-controllable backbone instead of > getting > Shared Address. > > (A4) Miyakawa-san asnwered on Nov.25 (JST) on this ML. > (At least, in Japan,) now so many PCs are running as a CPE device. > > Also, if a PC behind CPE in home network need to contact > any machine in a network X between LNS and CPE (see below), > and the network X is using Class E, > PC in the home can not send/receive any packets > to machines in the network X. > > This is not good, because we should save any status on a LNS > as much as possible.... > > Please understand that we must needs to have new space > to keep existing devices in the home. > > > to/from the Internet > | > | > +--------+--------+ > | Large Scale NAT | > +--------+--------+ +------------------------+ > | |SOME SERVICE such as DNS| > | +------+-----------------+ > | | > ---------+-------------------------+--------- <- Network X > | > | > +----+-----+ > | CPE | > +----+-----+ > | > | > ---------+------------ HOME NETWORK > | > +----+-----+ > | PC | > +----------+ > If you have PC's serving as a CPE then your proposal won't help them when such PCs are multihomed since the address space is not unique. Multihoming is much more likely when it's a PC CPE than when it's an ISP CPE. > > (Q5) When Multihoming with two ISPs, needed to consider the path > selection > like RFC3484. > > (A5) Customers who require Multihoming Service are not the target of > NAT444 > + Shared Address model. They should use expensive service that uses > Global > Address and/or Provider Independent Address (PI Address). > To do this service, ISP should manage the limited number of Global > Address > in its network. > > (Q6) Rewritten Source Address prevents 6to4 communication. > > (A6) Nothing will change as today's typical network model. > The endures who can use 6to4 service have to use the nodes with Global > IPv4 > address. > Today, we cannot use 6to4 service because we use private address in our > local network. So nothing will change after introducing Shared Address. Yes it will. If a PC gets an address, it will think it's a public address and will try using 6to4 and run into problems where it thinks it should work and it doesn't work right. This is very different from today where if it gets an address it thinks is public it works, and if it gets an address it thinks is private, it doesn't try 6to4. > (Q7) ISP Shared address will be used by end users. > > (A7) Same case happens nowadays. If end users use Global Address block > that > is same block as ISP's Global address block, address blocks will > duplicate. > > > > > (Q8) Show the technical reason to use new IANA Unicast. > > (A8) I showed the problem of RFC1918 private address at the page 4 of > this > presentation in Minneapolis. > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/intarea-1.pdf > Miyakawa-san showed the 240/4 problem at int-area@ ML. I copied it to > this > mail at (Q5)/(A5) above. > So we need IANA Unicast block. You didn't mention my comment in your list below. (Q9) ISPs aren't special. Corporate VPNs have the same problem with conflicting space, for example. (I believe there are other examples but VPN's are the most well known.) If ISPs get a space, then so should VPNs and various other things. -Dave > > > akira > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
