Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)

2004-12-07 Thread Francis Dupont
 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)

2004-12-07 Thread Joe Abley
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)

2004-12-07 Thread JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
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)

2004-12-07 Thread Stephen Sprunk
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)

2004-12-07 Thread JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
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)

2004-12-07 Thread Joe Abley
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)

2004-12-07 Thread shogunx
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)

2004-12-07 Thread JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
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)

2004-12-07 Thread shogunx
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)

2004-11-28 Thread JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
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