Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |Sorry for the delayed response - didn't see me in the to: or cc: fields.
|>
|> I try to keep all the mail to the list just to the list...
|
|As long as you don't ask me direct questions and expect me to answer
|than would be fine. This time it took almost 2 months...
This is really meta-discussion, but I find it confusing when a piece of a thread
doesn't make it to the list until after several rounds have occurred in private.
I think that those of us who actually read the entire thread appreciate the
opportunity to see each response as it is generated and to comment on those
responses before the subsequent rounds. For these reasons I think it is not
only reasonable but desirable to send each message through the list (only) even
if it contains questions addressed to others list readers.
|> |You seem to be assuming flash renumbering without overlap.
|>
|> Yes, that is the only reasonable assumption to make. Just as ISPs now use
|> short DHCP leases and related dynamic adderssing techniques to discourage
|> what they perceive as "bandwidth hungry server activity" they will use
|> frequent renumbering to achieve the same goals. Without site locals they
|> will have the added advantage of being able to disrupt not only your
|> "server's" accessibility from the internet, but your stereo and your tv as
|> well. At least they will be able to do this until v6 NAT appears.
|>
|> Please explain why you assume that ISPs will change their business models
|> under v6.
|
|The ISPs business model is about service differentiation.
|They can and do use various techniques in IPv4 to accomplish this - short
|DHCP leases, 1 vs. multiple IP addresses, port filtering, access line bandwidth
|etc. They will AFAIK continue to need to do service differentiation.
|But the actual form of service differentiation doesn't need to be
|the same.
|
|Will v6 make the ISPs that do port filtering stop doing so?
|Not uness there is some other means to provide service differentiation.
|
|Will v6 make the ISPs that use short leases stop doing so?
|Not uness there is some other means to provide service differentiation.
This does not answer the question of why you assume that ISPs will change their
business models under v6. In fact, it sounds like you are now agreeing that
they will not do so, at least not unless some other as-yet-unspecified change
occurs. Given that without such a change we agree that ISPs will limit both
the number and stability of v6 addresses just as they now do with v4 addresses,
and given that you haven't offered a reason why flash renumbering won't be used
to make the situation worse (well, worse for customers, better for ISPs), how
exactly have we obviated the need for site-locals and scoping?
|If we can provide some other means for them to do so, we can avoid having to
|warp the addressing architecture to try to "route around" the ISPs desire.
I don't think that it is desirable to create additional means for ISPs to
charge for "services" that consist largely of not disrupting their customers'
internal networks. That kind of "service differentiation" is always going to
be artificial. If v6 ever reaches the penetration that some of us originally
hoped it would (and that is becoming less and less likely IMHO) we could depend
on it for all sorts of internal communications between, e.g., appliances,
televisions, alarm systems, light controllers, etc. Designing such a system to
operate correctly independent of the actions of external service providers is
arguably best practice and sound engineering. It is not simply an attempt to
"route around" the ISP's desire to collect monthly service fees for allowing a
local network to operate. If the intended architecture does not provide a clean
way to do what the vast majority of users are going to see as an obvious given
(i.e., operate a stable local network) then NAT will "route around" the blatant
deficiency. While you can define the protocol to favor the ISP's desires, the
free market will eventually serve the user's desire for a working local network.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
