Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
In your previous mail you wrote: Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting a new chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP? = the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are so heavy than nobody wants to follow them to get some address space... Obviously the purpose is to discourage us to ask for chunk of IPv4 addresses. For IPv6 the procedure is painful but usable. What is the average delay you experiment? = infinite for IPv4, two months for IPv6. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote: In your previous mail you wrote: Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting a new chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP? = the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are so heavy than nobody wants to follow them to get some address space... Obviously the purpose is to discourage us to ask for chunk of IPv4 addresses. For IPv6 the procedure is painful but usable. What is the average delay you experiment? = infinite for IPv4, two months for IPv6. Thank you for this very valuable/key piece of information. What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
At 17:29 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote: On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote: In your previous mail you wrote: Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting a new chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP? = the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are so heavy than nobody wants to follow them to get some address space... Obviously the purpose is to discourage us to ask for chunk of IPv4 addresses. For IPv6 the procedure is painful but usable. What is the average delay you experiment? = infinite for IPv4, two months for IPv6. Thank you for this very valuable/key piece of information. What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others? That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected. You see, a user only cares about what he realy gets. A partner of mine was unable to get an IPv4 address in 2 years. Same for chunks. I do not think there is any other need to document why there are NATs and no IPv6. NAT is seen as an alternative to IPv6. While IPv6 should be an alternative to IPv4. In blocking IPv4 XIRs block IPv6. Basic marketing. I only helped a few more responses like Francis' one would help to understand there is a problem now, not in a few years. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
Thus spake JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected. You see, a user only cares about what he realy gets. A partner of mine was unable to get an IPv4 address in 2 years. Same for chunks. I do not think there is any other need to document why there are NATs and no IPv6. NAT is seen as an alternative to IPv6. While IPv6 should be an alternative to IPv4. In blocking IPv4 XIRs block IPv6. Basic marketing. We do not know why M. Dupont's request was denied by RENATER, nor is the latter an RIR. LIRs may have their own policies which do not match those of their corresponding RIR, and applicants are free to pick another LIR (or become their own) if necessary. There have been no clearly documented cases, AFAIK, where an RIR has denied a request that met with their policy requirements. One may argue that the policies have unreasonable requirements, but those policies were approved by open process involving the community they serve and (for IPv4) based on the global consensus supporting RFC 2050. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote: On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others? That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected. RENATER is not an RIR. Please let us not try to make a point: we want to _understand_ why NATs develop more than IPv6. RENATER is an acknowledged leader in promoting IPv6: they are certainly not concerned. What is interesting is the way users may perceive the culture deduced from the RIR policy or strategy (which may very well work for others). The interest is not to know who is right (no one is right or wrong) but why there are more NATs than IPv6 and to be able to change that. What works in some/most today cases may not work in every case. I feel, and I try to document, it may be because we want to discuss about a single kind of users (ourselves and operators), rather than to listen to them all (the small networks, home networks). The customer is always right ... all the customers if we want them all. What counts is not the way the network is built, but the way the users understand it. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
On 7 Dec 2004, at 15:46, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote: On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others? That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected. RENATER is not an RIR. Please let us not try to make a point There seems to be no danger of that. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote: On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others? That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected. RENATER is not an RIR. Please let us not try to make a point: we want to _understand_ why NATs develop more than IPv6. because NAT's have been around in the public eye for a while, are generally understood or at least accepted by the consumer public, and you can go buy one off the shelf. ipv6, on the other hand, outside of the ietf community is an unknown. my best recommendation would be some manner of public awareness propaganda stint promoting v6, combined with rollout at the backbones, followed closely by rollout at the ISP's fed by the backbone to the end users. this does not mean that NAT and ipv6 are mutually exclusive. far from it. from my research, which i have shared with you previously, an already constructed NAT needs only v6 capablility added to the NAT'ed hosts and a v6 native or tunnel support and v6 routing added to it, such that the v6 internet overlays the existing internat. RENATER is an acknowledged leader in promoting IPv6: they are certainly not concerned. What is interesting is the way users may perceive the culture deduced from the RIR policy or strategy (which may very well work for others). The interest is not to know who is right (no one is right or wrong) but why there are more NATs than IPv6 and to be able to change that. What works in some/most today cases may not work in every case. I feel, and I try to document, it may be because we want to discuss about a single kind of users (ourselves and operators), rather than to listen to them all (the small networks, home networks). The customer is always right ... all the customers if we want them all. What counts is not the way the network is built, but the way the users understand it. both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly, large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT again. scott jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote: both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly, large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT again. True. Obviously the techology is of the essence. What I mean is that IPv6 will only take off the day the reason why IPv6 was designed is permitted to be used (to be an IPv4 with larger addresses). This means that users will be permitted to freely innovate in the way they use the Internet in _not_ carring about the type of address they use. And that we do not block this innovative usage in not permitting what this innovation may need, and in not stabilizing the standards. Today I think these needs include legal protection, regalian services, permanent addressing, independence from ISP, plug-and-play, ... Obviously as you say. The internat is the future, with NATs adding functions over functions. But we will then talk more of corebox than NATs. They started as NATs, but once they are under IPv6 - and not a NAT anymore - they will continue to be here, and to provide an increasing pile of services (starting with OPES, and their network overlay and all the possible new architectural non-end-to-end systems .. and all the debates this will rise). So, let talk of interbox. Exciting future. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote: both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly, large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT again. True. Obviously the techology is of the essence. What I mean is that IPv6 will only take off the day the reason why IPv6 was designed is permitted to be used (to be an IPv4 with larger addresses). what is standing in the way at the isp level are the following: a) support applications. we all know good network operators are usually anal about security. anyone have a packet sniffer for v6? b) revenue streams for isp's. currently, v4 addresses are a commodity item. they cost the end users, no matter who you go to. are the isp's willing to give up these revenue streams for better technology? perhaps the independents, but asking a telco to give up a way to make money once they have already found out how to extract it from the public is like trying to get a sperm sample from your grandmother. good luck. This means that users will be permitted to freely innovate in the way they use the Internet in _not_ carring about the type of address they use. And that we do not block this innovative usage in not permitting what this innovation may need, and in not stabilizing the standards. Today I think these needs include legal protection, why and from whom? regalian services, please define? permanent addressing, solved. my tunnels provide with them my allocations, for all practical purposes. i have had the same v6 addresses on my hosts since i implemented v6 quite some time ago, with 's pointing to the hosts i wished to make public. of course, i have added many more hosts since i implemented v6. people in the know are asking to colo in my home office simply because i have v6. independence from ISP, solved. a tunnel is portable. plug-and-play, ... if you mean stateless autoconfig, then that is solved too. if it is not wit you, then i suggest that you contact your OS vendor, or better yet, move to a better OS;) Obviously as you say. The internat is the future, with NATs adding functions over functions. i'm just saying that since we have NATs, we already have layer 1 of the v6 network in place at the end user premises. But we will then talk more of corebox than NATs. having built one of those and implemented it on the atlanta backbone some months ago (remotely no less) there is a need for real large scale routing hardware to handle v6 expansion at the backbone and isp level. They started as NATs, but once they are under IPv6 - and not a NAT anymore - they will continue to be here, and to provide an increasing pile of services (starting with OPES, and their network overlay and all the possible new architectural non-end-to-end systems IMHO it is the end to end possibilities that are the most exciting. .. and all the debates this will rise). So, let talk of interbox. Exciting future. Indeed. scott jfc sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)
The IETF is supposed to gather everyone concerned and there is here a controversy on this real life and key/vital point. So the best is to ask in here. If no one says yes, it will mean either there is no felt shortage yes, or that those suffering from shortage do not share in the IETF (why would then be another question). If some says yes, this kind of universal affirmation will be closed. At 11:07 28/11/2004, Jeroen Massar wrote: Arguably, if the ISPs handed out a (static) IP to every customer, soon they'd be out of IPs, and thus unable to grow their businesses from that perspective. That is such a odd argument. When an ISP runs out of IP space, they go to their RIR and say Hey! You! I am running out of IP space gimme a new chunk! There is *no* address shortage in IPv4 (nor IPv6), see the various very nice presentations by Geoff Huston which he gave at the RIR meetings and other places. Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting a new chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP? What is the average delay you experiment? Thank you. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
