RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> > real time inventory management > Wow! I've heard all sorts of claims for what IPv6 will do/include, but I > must say that's a new one It's like Wal-Mart approach: the inventory constantly moves, it never sits still on the shelf. IPv6 addressed RFID tags look promising. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Noel Chiappa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 by now they would have ... > > real time inventory management > > Wow! I've heard all sorts of claims for what IPv6 will do/include, but I > must say that's a new one > > Noel > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
On 14-apr-2006, at 15:52, Peter Dambier wrote: That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended private space or make it global unicast. When develloping IASON, first I found out, CISCO boxes would not allow me to use class E addresses nor would HP boxes. Next I found out Linux boxes would not either. I guess most boxes will not allow you to use these addresses. Use a Mac. :-) en0: flags=8863 mtu 1500 inet 240.240.240.240 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 240.240.240.255 (Also the only major OS that has IPv6 turned on by default.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Michel Py wrote: That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended private space or make it global unicast. When develloping IASON, first I found out, CISCO boxes would not allow me to use class E addresses nor would HP boxes. Next I found out Linux boxes would not either. I guess most boxes will not allow you to use these addresses. Cheers Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Michel Py wrote: > That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global > ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This > brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended > private space or make it global unicast. > I think we bite the bullet and go to IPv6. Screwing around with Class E address space at this late date is counterproductive. Say what you will about v6. It *does* have more bits. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 by now they would have ... > real time inventory management Wow! I've heard all sorts of claims for what IPv6 will do/include, but I must say that's a new one Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 when Eric wrote RFC1687 it > would not have done anything to their bottom line as of today and wasted > my money. If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 by now they would have an efficient production and real time inventory management; would have saved billions in costs and were giving (at least part of it) to Michel. As a shareholder you may want to think how you vote during the next shareholders meeting. Cheers, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian, > > >> Michel Py wrote: > >>v > >>| > >>/\ > >> +-+ / \ ++ > >> | Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money | > >> | To IPv6 | \/ | to Michel | > >> +-+ \ / ++ > >>\/ > >> > >> M. Tough call. > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Yes, it is. It's called long term strategic investment > > versus short term profit taking. That's a very tough call. > > If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 when Eric wrote RFC1687 it > would not have done anything to their bottom line as of today and wasted > my money. If they had deployed 5 years ago there still would be no > return as of today and if they deployed today I see no return (in > reduced operating costs) for 5 years. As a shareholder my best interest > so far has been not to deploy. My instructions are: keep an eye on the > situation, if there is a change in conditions that means IPv6 buck could > bring bang _then_ go for it; in the mean time put my cash where it does > bring some bang, either by developing new products or by paying me > dividends 4 times a year. > > As long as other shareholders (especially the ones who work there and > likely have scores of unvested shares) think the same way, this is the > deal. > > > > Eliot Lear wrote: > > Boeing has enough devices and networks that it could on its own > > probably exhaust a substantial portion of remaining IPv4 address > > space we have now. They certainly have more than a /8's worth, > > and that poses RFC1918 problems > > Boeing has 159,000 employees. RFC1918 space is 17,891,328 addresses. > That's more than 100 IP addresses per employee, I think Eric can manage. > > That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global > ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This > brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended > private space or make it global unicast. > > Michel. > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Brian, >> Michel Py wrote: >>v >>| >>/\ >> +-+ / \ ++ >> | Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money | >> | To IPv6 | \/ | to Michel | >> +-+ \ / ++ >>\/ >> >> M. Tough call. > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Yes, it is. It's called long term strategic investment > versus short term profit taking. That's a very tough call. If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 when Eric wrote RFC1687 it would not have done anything to their bottom line as of today and wasted my money. If they had deployed 5 years ago there still would be no return as of today and if they deployed today I see no return (in reduced operating costs) for 5 years. As a shareholder my best interest so far has been not to deploy. My instructions are: keep an eye on the situation, if there is a change in conditions that means IPv6 buck could bring bang _then_ go for it; in the mean time put my cash where it does bring some bang, either by developing new products or by paying me dividends 4 times a year. As long as other shareholders (especially the ones who work there and likely have scores of unvested shares) think the same way, this is the deal. > Eliot Lear wrote: > Boeing has enough devices and networks that it could on its own > probably exhaust a substantial portion of remaining IPv4 address > space we have now. They certainly have more than a /8's worth, > and that poses RFC1918 problems Boeing has 159,000 employees. RFC1918 space is 17,891,328 addresses. That's more than 100 IP addresses per employee, I think Eric can manage. That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended private space or make it global unicast. Michel. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
v | /\ +-+ / \ ++ | Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money | | To IPv6 | \/ | to Michel | +-+ \ / ++ \/ M. Tough call. Yes, it is. It's called long term strategic investment versus short term profit taking. That's a very tough call. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> Eric Fleischman wrote: > that us end users will go to great lengths to avoid any costly > network upgrade that does not contribute anything to our bottom > line. Think about it: why would we spend tens of millions of > dollars to get equivalent network connectivity to what we > already have? It makes absolutely no sense from our point-of-view. Indeed. Put these tens of millions of dollars where they rightfully belong: in my pocket. I own Boeing (well, a very little part of it). I understand this might sound shocking in some parts of the world, but the reasons I bought Boeing shares are because I expect to resell these shares later for more that what I paid for them AND collect dividends along the road. This concept is known as "capitalism" in some parts of the world. +-+ | Build Airplanes | +++ | v +++ | Sell Airplanes | +++ | v +-+--+ | Make a buck or two | +-+--+ | v | /\ +-+ / \ ++ | Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money | | To IPv6 | \/ | to Michel | +-+ \ / ++ \/ M. Tough call. Michel. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 11-apr-2006, at 15:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote: However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with provider independece. You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million enterprise customers and ten billion total hosts to convince me. I'm serious. Which properties would you like to examine in such a model? It shouldn't be too problematic to simulate a routing table of 100 million entries (I'm assuming there won't be any host routes...) in non real time, but simulating the interactions between several routers per AS for several ASes will be harder at this scale. Yes, simulating convergence times would be quite a challenge. So I think a sufficient initial target would be the converged BGP4 table in a core ISP. Even that will need a model for how enterprises, ISPs, ASes, peering and exchanges are distributed around the world. Lots of assumptions to specify. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
On 11-apr-2006, at 15:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote: However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with provider independece. You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million enterprise customers and ten billion total hosts to convince me. I'm serious. Which properties would you like to examine in such a model? It shouldn't be too problematic to simulate a routing table of 100 million entries (I'm assuming there won't be any host routes...) in non real time, but simulating the interactions between several routers per AS for several ASes will be harder at this scale. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Noel, Back in 1993 I predicted that what you have just stated is what us end users will actually do in regards to IPv6 (which we called IPng back then). I documented my thoughts in that regards in RFC 1687. RFC 1687 is somewhat dated now, since the example of a "killer app" I selected is rather "quaint" (to be generous), but the types of motivation underlying that identification still persist. In any case, I applaud your insight below that us end users will go to great lengths to avoid any costly network upgrade that does not contribute anything to our bottom line. Think about it: why would we spend tens of millions of dollars to get equivalent network connectivity to what we already have? It makes absolutely no sense from our point-of-view. --Eric -Original Message- From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:36 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.) > From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The world needs the wake up call that reality is about to hit them in > the face and they will need all the time there is left to develop a > managed IPv6 deployment plan. If they don't start now they will be > forced into a crash deployment when they try to get more space and find > out the pool had long ago run dry. The IETF as a whole needs to wake up > as well and stop developing for a dead end technology. "The best laid plans o' mice an' men gang aft agley." -- Robert Burns "'Do not put too much faith in this hairy architecture you have constructed', retorted Daemon Feature. 'All this is insignificant compared to the Hack.'" -- Mark Crispin, "Software Wars" Many years ago now, a funny thing happened on the way to "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 1)". Some clever people worked out this ugly hack, which the marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a superior solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6. It's been selling like hot-cakes ever since, while IPv6 languished. I've become rather disenchanted with my crystal ball, which seems quite cloudy of late (if you'd told me, in 1986, we'd still be running a Destination-Vector routing architecture for a routing table of this size 20 years later, I'd have *known* you were bonkers), so I have no specific prediction to make, but... Don't be surprised if the world, facing "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 2)" decides, yet again, that some sort of Plan B is a better choice than a conversion to IPv6. I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market in IPv4 addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one possibility), but there are a lot of clever people out there, and *once events force them to turn their attention to this particular alligator*, don't be surprised if they don't come up with yet another workaround. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
... However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with provider independece. If you examine European routes in the routing table of a router on the American west coast, you'll see that the vast majority of those routes point towards the same next hop. So if you could express an aggregate that encompasses all those routes and point that aggregate towards that next hop, you could filter out all those specific routes and the routing table in that one router would be a lot smaller. At each hop the number of routes that have a different next hop than the aggregate increases, until at some point the aggregate doesn't serve a useful purpose anymore. But by then you're in Europe or at least on the American east coast, where you can heavily aggregate Asia. You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million enterprise customers and ten billion total hosts to convince me. I'm serious. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
>You know, you could assign IPv6 addresses in a strictly geographic >way and you'd have more than enough for everyone, everywhere, > with very simple routing. But of course that won't be done. In fact some people are doing this today within their networks. IPv6 marveles ability to "address every millonth of a second of arc inlatitude and longitude on the planet" drives the entire excitment and funding. Private networks aside IP address allocation maybe needs to be done on a strictly geographical basis in a politically neutral fashion, e.g. via UN sponsored RIR / LIR. We may need an RFC on how to fund IANA activities through UN allowing "free" allocation of addresses to any interested individual or establishment. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Peter Sherbin writes:> It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes> naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new> device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite> universe of 0 and 1.That would only be true if IP addresses were geographically assigned,which they aren't.You know, you could assign IPv6 addresses in a strictly geographic wayand you'd have more than enough for everyone, everywhere, with verysimple routing. But of course that won't be done.> The actual cost driver here is a need for an operator (e.g.> Postal Service or ISP) to maintain a list of all existing addresses> to be able to provide their services.Not necessarily. If the addressing is strictly geographic--naddresses for each area of m square metres on the planet--routingwould be very simple and wouldn't require much in the way of tables.With 78 bits, you can address every millonth of a second of arc inlatitude and longitude on the planet. That's an area of about 0.00095square millimetres.___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
On 11-apr-2006, at 4:39, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite universe of 0 and 1. Maybe in some part of the universe addresses are infinite, but in the part where I live it's mostly 32 bits. That would only be true if IP addresses were geographically assigned, which they aren't. You know, you could assign IPv6 addresses in a strictly geographic way and you'd have more than enough for everyone, everywhere, with very simple routing. But of course that won't be done. No, routing would be more complex. Routing is the art and science of getting to a place, which is a lot harder than simply knowing where a place is. However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with provider independece. If you examine European routes in the routing table of a router on the American west coast, you'll see that the vast majority of those routes point towards the same next hop. So if you could express an aggregate that encompasses all those routes and point that aggregate towards that next hop, you could filter out all those specific routes and the routing table in that one router would be a lot smaller. At each hop the number of routes that have a different next hop than the aggregate increases, until at some point the aggregate doesn't serve a useful purpose anymore. But by then you're in Europe or at least on the American east coast, where you can heavily aggregate Asia. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Peter Sherbin writes: > It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes > naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new > device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite > universe of 0 and 1. That would only be true if IP addresses were geographically assigned, which they aren't. You know, you could assign IPv6 addresses in a strictly geographic way and you'd have more than enough for everyone, everywhere, with very simple routing. But of course that won't be done. > The actual cost driver here is a need for an operator (e.g. > Postal Service or ISP) to maintain a list of all existing addresses > to be able to provide their services. Not necessarily. If the addressing is strictly geographic--n addresses for each area of m square metres on the planet--routing would be very simple and wouldn't require much in the way of tables. With 78 bits, you can address every millonth of a second of arc in latitude and longitude on the planet. That's an area of about 0.00095 square millimetres. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
John C Klensin writes: > So, let's assume that I'm an ISP and (i) I discover that I've > switched to IPv6 to avoid needing to use private addressing in my > core network, (ii) I discover that it is now costing me more to > support IPv4 customers (because they require protocol and address > translation gateways, even with 4-to-6 and similar schemes) than it > does to support native IPv6 customers. (iii) I decide to start > passing those costs along to the IPv4 users, maybe even > disproportionately to get people to migrate. Or suppose that, as an > ISP, I decide I want to save IPv4 addresses for my big-bucks > customers and hence to force those "regular users" to pay the big > bucks to keep using IPv4. Plausible so far. > Now, at least two things impact whether migration occurs at that > stage. One is whether there are still effective options for IPv4 at > a sufficiently low differential price point to justify a switch in > providers. How large that differential would need to be is pretty > much speculation -- far harder than predicting the future of address > space exhaustion. And it is complicated by the question of how much > choice of providers that regular user actually has -- in many areas, > the answer is not a lot of choices. In the areas that make the heaviest use of the Internet, there will be many choices, and the only ISPs able to get away with an IPv4 surcharge will be the last ones to support IPv4. The first one to attempt a surcharge will inevitably lose customers. > The second is whether IPv6 is really good enough to deliver > services (at the applications layer, which is all those "regular > users" care about) that are roughly as good, and as complete as > set, as the IPv4 services.It is there that I think we are in > trouble with regard to hardware, support costs, tutorial > information, etc. There will also be trouble if someone decides to use IPv6 services that were never available in IPv4, and discovers that the rest of the world is still not on IPv6. The interesting thing is that the last part of the world to move to IPv6 will probably be the part that has the most IPv4 addresses ... that is, the United States. So anyone with IPv6 will have trouble dealing with hosts in the United States, and that will not help adoption of IPv6. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > That's the popular view. In reality, people deployed NAT mostly for > reasons that have little to do with the global IPv4 address > depletion. They deployed it mainly because getting an IPv4 address costs money, and involves considerable red tape. Mainly because it costs money. > The future just doesn't want to honor the principle of least > astonishment: what we expect to change, often stays the same, while > what we expect to stay the same, more often than not changes. Yes, this is the problem faced by all futurists, including those who work in IT. The only thing that one can reliably predict is the unknown. > Everyone who thinks that regular users are going to forego IPv4 > connectivity in favor of IPv6 connectivity as long as IPv4 still > works to a remotely usable degree is a card carrying member of the > Internet Fantasy Task Force*. Yes. Even I don't plan to do so unless my ISP forces the issue; the change would bring me nothing and would cost time and money to implement. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market > in IPv4 addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one > possibility), but there are a lot of clever people out there, > and *once events force them to turn their attention to this > particular alligator*, don't be surprised if they don't come > up with yet another workaround. It's a free market qualified by force majeur. So for example there are a number of Class A domains which would probably fetch a significant sum if put up for open auction. As address space scarcity begins to bite IP address squatting will become profitable (at present it is not). More people will stock up on addresses anticipating scarcity. The problem here is that there are also parties that might decide that $10 million (or whatever) is rather a lot to pay for the privillege of talking to (say) net 18 and simply start injecting the relevant routes. This is an unacceptable outcome of course but the threat is sufficient to lower the price of involuntary recycling of address space. The only prediction I think can be made with confidence here is that whatever the choice made it is not going to be a pretty one. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> To make things worse site local IPv6 addresses were deprecated. So you > dont have a chance to number your machines locally and play with IPv6 > for learning. You have to get an official /64 network to run your site. But now you have Locally Assigned Local Addresses and if you do the right thing choosing your prefix then you can usually connect multiple sites together without having to renumber one of them. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> it certainly will be interesting to see what an IP> address is really worth. It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite universe of 0 and 1. The actual cost driver here is a need for an operator (e.g. Postal Service or ISP) to maintain a list of all existing addresses to be able to provide their services. Technically IP address is an enabler of a service rather than the service itself such as e.g. delivery of a message from A to B. As such addresses should not be sold or rented, they just come with devices. IP addresses, in particular IPv6 ones, is more a common good that we all share such as air rather then an item produced for sale by someone who incurres costs during production. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:> The problem is that nothing matches historical growth, because it> contains elements that have proven resistant against modeling.That's the way I see it myself.> Until that time, I'll continue to assume 2010 - 2015 with> 2012 as the most likely moment for IPv4 to run out.In the big scheme of things, I actually don't see what it changes toknow the exact date now anyway.> We only get to cry wolf so many times.And we have cried a lot over the last 10 years (including doompredictions over Y2K). As of today I don't see people doing anythinguntil they actually see the wolf. And I think they won't even doanything then until the wolf proves to be a big annoyance, which remainsto be seen.> When we run out of IPv4 space obviously very many people will> have IPv4 addresses and they'll want to keep using them.Indeed. And in the case of the US (and to a lesser extent otherindustrialized countries) 3 to 4 addresses per capita are enough for avery long time. It is possible that the US will remain a v4 dealforever, as many Americans are not interested in what happens elsewherein the first place.To me, the interesting thing is not WHEN it will happen; it's WHAThappens when it does and what we can do about it.> There is however and interesting policy question: should we> allow IPv4 addresses to be sold? Some people are in favor of> this, but I don't see the upside of formally allowing it.> (People are going to do it to some degree anyway.)I think it's too early to have good decision arguments about what to doabout this. The wealthy (meaning: can afford to pay $10/month for anaddress) will have an address no matter what. The supply is limited butso is the demand, it certainly will be interesting to see what an IPaddress is really worth.My take on it is that we have to wait a year or so and see how the blackmarket develops and how bad it is. Generally speaking, the addressesalready are where the money also is; unless dramatic socio-economicchanges happen I don't see much movement there. The demand is not howmany people want IP addresses; the demand is how many people wantaddresses times how much they can spend on one. Also, some governmentsmight actually like the double-NAT idea, as it somehow restricts freeflow of information and might appear more controllable.> Noel Chiappa wrote:> Some clever people worked out this ugly hack, which the> marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a superior> solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6.I don't think the market decided it was "superior". The market decidedit was good enough, cheaper, and easier.> Don't be surprised if the world, facing "complete exhaustion of the> IPv4 address space (Version 2)" decides, yet again, that some sort> of Plan B is a better choice than a conversion to IPv6.> I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market in IPv4> addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one possibility), but> there are a lot of clever people out there, and *once events force> them to turn their attention to this particular alligator*, don't be> surprised if they don't come up with yet another workaround.I agree with Noel here.Michel___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
--On Monday, 10 April, 2006 19:31 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > Everyone who thinks that regular users are going to forego > IPv4 connectivity in favor of IPv6 connectivity as long as > IPv4 still works to a remotely usable degree is a card > carrying member of the Internet Fantasy Task Force*. Because I think part of this comment is important, I want to disagree with part of the statement. The gating factor isn't just "works to a remotely useable degree". It is also a matter of cost. Especially at the "regular user" end of the market, decisions are typically very cost-sensitive. So, let's assume that I'm an ISP and (i) I discover that I've switched to IPv6 to avoid needing to use private addressing in my core network, (ii) I discover that it is now costing me more to support IPv4 customers (because they require protocol and address translation gateways, even with 4-to-6 and similar schemes) than it does to support native IPv6 customers. (iii) I decide to start passing those costs along to the IPv4 users, maybe even disproportionately to get people to migrate. Or suppose that, as an ISP, I decide I want to save IPv4 addresses for my big-bucks customers and hence to force those "regular users" to pay the big bucks to keep using IPv4. Now, at least two things impact whether migration occurs at that stage. One is whether there are still effective options for IPv4 at a sufficiently low differential price point to justify a switch in providers. How large that differential would need to be is pretty much speculation -- far harder than predicting the future of address space exhaustion. And it is complicated by the question of how much choice of providers that regular user actually has -- in many areas, the answer is not a lot of choices. The second is whether IPv6 is really good enough to deliver services (at the applications layer, which is all those "regular users" care about) that are roughly as good, and as complete as set, as the IPv4 services.It is there that I think we are in trouble with regard to hardware, support costs, tutorial information, etc. But it isn't just "still works well enough" ... there are some incentives that can be applied here and that some might claim are inevitable that might cause a "regular user" shift on a purely economic basis. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Noel Chiappa wrote: Many years ago now, a funny thing happened on the way to "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 1)". Some clever people worked out this ugly hack, which the marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a superior solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6. It's been selling like hot-cakes ever since, while IPv6 languished. Wasn't there a thing called ISO or OSI? The think that was meant to revolutionize the internet. I still have my ISODE kit running on my old machines that probably never will run IPv6. ISODE could seamlessly run over IPv4 and directly on the ISDN interface. Only today ISDN runs over IPv4 itself :) I've become rather disenchanted with my crystal ball, which seems quite cloudy of late (if you'd told me, in 1986, we'd still be running a Destination-Vector routing architecture for a routing table of this size 20 years later, I'd have *known* you were bonkers), so I have no specific prediction to make, but... Exactly here thems to be IPv6 biggest problem. The people playing with IPv6 could not but connect via IPv4 tunnels. Nobody had a clue about routing. In the old 3fff:: network network1/64 was in Stockholm, network2/64 in Newyork, network3/64 in Stockholm again and so on. This was not a problem because everybody was connected by point-to-point links and the routing was done by IPv4. Now they have changed to the 2001:: network but they still have no clue about the routing issues at all. To make things worse site local IPv6 addresses were deprecated. So you dont have a chance to number your machines locally and play with IPv6 for learning. You have to get an official /64 network to run your site. Don't be surprised if the world, facing "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 2)" decides, yet again, that some sort of Plan B is a better choice than a conversion to IPv6. RFC 1347 TUBA: A Proposal for Addressing and Routing June 1992 I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market in IPv4 addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one possibility), but there are a lot of clever people out there, and *once events force them to turn their attention to this particular alligator*, don't be surprised if they don't come up with yet another workaround. Noel The chinese internet with its own root and TLDs like XN--55QX5D, XN--FIQS8S, XN--IO0A7I and the Great Firewall Router is researching into TUBA and I dont beleave we will like the outcome. Every dictator will like it. Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
On 10-apr-2006, at 16:35, Noel Chiappa wrote: Many years ago now, a funny thing happened on the way to "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 1)". Some clever people worked out this ugly hack, which the marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a superior solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6. It's been selling like hot-cakes ever since, while IPv6 languished. That's the popular view. In reality, people deployed NAT mostly for reasons that have little to do with the global IPv4 address depletion. And IPv6 hasn't been ready for any kind of deployment until the early 2000s. I've become rather disenchanted with my crystal ball, which seems quite cloudy of late (if you'd told me, in 1986, we'd still be running a Destination-Vector routing architecture for a routing table of this size 20 years later, I'd have *known* you were bonkers), The future just doesn't want to honor the principle of least astonishment: what we expect to change, often stays the same, while what we expect to stay the same, more often than not changes. Don't be surprised if the world, facing "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 2)" decides, yet again, that some sort of Plan B is a better choice than a conversion to IPv6. Everyone who thinks that regular users are going to forego IPv4 connectivity in favor of IPv6 connectivity as long as IPv4 still works to a remotely usable degree is a card carrying member of the Internet Fantasy Task Force*. For now, the usability of IPv4 is relatively constant while that of IPv6 is much lower, but steadily increasing over time as IPv6 support in hard- and software increases in quantity and quality. Assuming that the people who get all those millions of IPv4 addresses every year actually use them for something, like connecting new customers, in 4 to 8 years, something will have to give. I don't think the big change will be in the demand side, as we see that countries with several IPv4 addresses per capita (even without legacy /8s) are still using up new ones while other countries have a lot of catching up to do, and more IP devices seems likely for just VoIP if nothing else. (I've made a new page that shows addresses per capita: http:// www.bgpexpert.com/addressespercountry.php There are actually several countries that have a factor 1000 fewer IPv4 addresses per capita than the US and a factor 10 is fairly common even in Europe.) I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market in IPv4 addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one possibility), but there are a lot of clever people out there, and *once events force them to turn their attention to this particular alligator*, don't be surprised if they don't come up with yet another workaround. Well, the IETF has done its job by creating IPv6, so whatever happens, we should be in decent shape. Soon enough we can turn our attention to the fact that we're still doing our interdomain routing with RIP on steroids. (-: Iljitsch * coined by Tony Hain ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > The problem is that nothing matches historical growth, because it > contains elements that have proven resistant against modeling. That's the way I see it myself. > Until that time, I'll continue to assume 2010 - 2015 with > 2012 as the most likely moment for IPv4 to run out. In the big scheme of things, I actually don't see what it changes to know the exact date now anyway. > We only get to cry wolf so many times. And we have cried a lot over the last 10 years (including doom predictions over Y2K). As of today I don't see people doing anything until they actually see the wolf. And I think they won't even do anything then until the wolf proves to be a big annoyance, which remains to be seen. > When we run out of IPv4 space obviously very many people will > have IPv4 addresses and they'll want to keep using them. Indeed. And in the case of the US (and to a lesser extent other industrialized countries) 3 to 4 addresses per capita are enough for a very long time. It is possible that the US will remain a v4 deal forever, as many Americans are not interested in what happens elsewhere in the first place. To me, the interesting thing is not WHEN it will happen; it's WHAT happens when it does and what we can do about it. > There is however and interesting policy question: should we > allow IPv4 addresses to be sold? Some people are in favor of > this, but I don't see the upside of formally allowing it. > (People are going to do it to some degree anyway.) I think it's too early to have good decision arguments about what to do about this. The wealthy (meaning: can afford to pay $10/month for an address) will have an address no matter what. The supply is limited but so is the demand, it certainly will be interesting to see what an IP address is really worth. My take on it is that we have to wait a year or so and see how the black market develops and how bad it is. Generally speaking, the addresses already are where the money also is; unless dramatic socio-economic changes happen I don't see much movement there. The demand is not how many people want IP addresses; the demand is how many people want addresses times how much they can spend on one. Also, some governments might actually like the double-NAT idea, as it somehow restricts free flow of information and might appear more controllable. > Noel Chiappa wrote: > Some clever people worked out this ugly hack, which the > marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a superior > solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6. I don't think the market decided it was "superior". The market decided it was good enough, cheaper, and easier. > Don't be surprised if the world, facing "complete exhaustion of the > IPv4 address space (Version 2)" decides, yet again, that some sort > of Plan B is a better choice than a conversion to IPv6. > I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market in IPv4 > addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one possibility), but > there are a lot of clever people out there, and *once events force > them to turn their attention to this particular alligator*, don't be > surprised if they don't come up with yet another workaround. I agree with Noel here. Michel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
> From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The world needs the wake up call that reality is about to hit them in > the face and they will need all the time there is left to develop a > managed IPv6 deployment plan. If they don't start now they will be > forced into a crash deployment when they try to get more space and find > out the pool had long ago run dry. The IETF as a whole needs to wake up > as well and stop developing for a dead end technology. "The best laid plans o' mice an' men gang aft agley." -- Robert Burns "'Do not put too much faith in this hairy architecture you have constructed', retorted Daemon Feature. 'All this is insignificant compared to the Hack.'" -- Mark Crispin, "Software Wars" Many years ago now, a funny thing happened on the way to "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 1)". Some clever people worked out this ugly hack, which the marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a superior solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6. It's been selling like hot-cakes ever since, while IPv6 languished. I've become rather disenchanted with my crystal ball, which seems quite cloudy of late (if you'd told me, in 1986, we'd still be running a Destination-Vector routing architecture for a routing table of this size 20 years later, I'd have *known* you were bonkers), so I have no specific prediction to make, but... Don't be surprised if the world, facing "complete exhaustion of the IPv4 address space (Version 2)" decides, yet again, that some sort of Plan B is a better choice than a conversion to IPv6. I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market in IPv4 addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one possibility), but there are a lot of clever people out there, and *once events force them to turn their attention to this particular alligator*, don't be surprised if they don't come up with yet another workaround. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
The real issue is that Geoff's linear projections against the current .75 /8's per month going out from the RIRs to hit a 2012 date don't match the historical growth. I suppose I should respond here, particularly as the quote about using linear models is not a correct one. The projection model I use is updated daily at http://ipv4.potaroo.net using a rolling window of the past 1000 days to generate a predictive model of address consumption. Today's projection of IANA pool exhaustion is September 2011 and RIR pool exhaustion a little over a year later (assuming that the RIR pool can be cleaned out with 100% efficiency - which is an unrealistic assumption, of course). The growth model used is an exponential one, and the report shows the fit of linear, exponential and O(2) polynomial curves to the data used for projection (Figure 22). The choise of exponential is based on a decent least squares linear best fit to the logarithm of the smoothed data. I use a 1000 day baseline (i.e. the last 1000 days of hourly data) to produce the projection model. i.e. the model assumes that tomorrow will be a lot like today, and the changes will be the same changes that were evident in the past. The trend predictor I use in the growth in the advertised address range in the BGP table, and I derive RIR and IANA consumption figures from a combination of this primary trend plus a related trend in the growth of the unadvertised address pool relative to the growth in the advertised address pool I then model RIR behaviour in order to model IANA pool consumption in order to derive a date of pool exhaustion, using existing IANA to RIR address allocation procedures as the basis of the model. How good is this technique? I guess we'll know in about 6 years or so, but the nature of this daily update is that it will tend to self-correct over time. Late 2005 was a large 'bubble' of addresses entering the routing table - as happened early 2003. Currently the growth rate is lower than this recent peak. This makes predictor models a little more challenging in terms of figuring out whether there is any sense in artificially weighting more recent data over older data. The one thing I'll note here is that this model makes no consideration of any form of 'run' on remaining address resources, nor any consideration of a change in allocation practices, nor a change in industry demands over and above what's already visible in trend production. I notice that this thread is labelled "reality". Projections are not reality, they are always guesses to one extent or another as to what will happen. Reality is, of course, what has happened and what is happening. So, to some extent all of this predicting stuff is just fun with numbers. The reasonable high level bits to take away from this exercise and others that have occurred and will no doubt occur in the future, is that there is an increasing level of certainty that the current forms of access and distribution of IPv4 addresses will experience a discontinuity sometime in the next 4 - 8 years. regards, Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
On 10-apr-2006, at 7:43, Tony Hain wrote: Instead of dissecting the numbers into chunks that give you the answer you want, how about looking at the big picture? [...] The real issue is that Geoff's linear projections against the current .75 /8's per month going out from the RIRs to hit a 2012 date don't match the historical growth. The problem is that nothing matches historical growth, because it contains elements that have proven resistant against modeling. (Note that Geoff has three different projections and the linear one doesn't hit the ceiling in 2012, with 0.75 /8s per month = 151 million/year this date would be 2015.) Also, taking a very short term view creates misleading windows that lead to claims like yours that we are now on a slower pace than last year, so not to worry. While the graph does show that we were above the projection curve last year and below it so far this year, the overall trend since Jan 2000 is tracking the projection very tightly. I don't see it. If I use a formula of deltayear(n) = deltayear(n-1) * x and start in 2000, the best fit (where the yearly differences between the projection and reality as a percentage added up equals zero) is a an x of 1.09. This is obviously ridiculous because both 2002 and 2005 are off by around 30% (93 vs 69 million and 120 vs 168 million). If I ignore 2002 and 2003 it comes out to 15%. This lands us in 2010 as the year IPv4 runs out, by the way, with the projection for this year at 180 million addresses. At 9% this would be early 2014 with a projection of 131 million addresses used this year. The only way I can fit the projections closely to reality is by picking 2002 as my start date and assuming 34% growth. This way, we're out very close to the turn of the decade, but it does mean we'll be using up 222 million IPv4 addresses this year. And that's something that the current figures just don't seem to support, even though 2006 so far as increased from 35 million when I wrote my earlier message to 45 million now. However, for 222 million it would have been something like 61 million by now. (But looking at the data this closely doesn't do much good.) The good news is that at the end of the year, we'll have a much better picture: either the mini-trend of around 34% growth in yearly address use that started after 2002 will turn out to have continued more or less, or it turns out it wasn't a trend after all, just like the dip in 2002 wasn't a new trend. Until that time, I'll continue to assume 2010 - 2015 with 2012 as the most likely moment for IPv4 to run out. Changing the RIR policy is a hopeless cause. This would have to be a simultaneous global change and the process for getting global agreement takes at least 2 years (as shown by the only global agreement they have; IPv6 policy, and the much longer time it is taking to debate changes to it). By the time anything could be done there wouldn't be enough left to worry about. I don't think the actual changing is the hard part, but coming up with a new policy that is better than what we have now, is. We'll never really run out of /24s and blocks that aren't much larger because even though <= /18 blocks make up 90% of all allocations they make up less than 10% of the total address space used, i.e., less than a /8 a year. So we only have to reclaim a single /8 per year to accommodate those requests. For the really big blocks that ISPs are burning through so fast these days, I don't see a reasonable policy that can slow this down without basically making IPv4 effectively run out for them at the time of the policy change rather than when we're really out. Either you give those ISPs what they need or they'll have to start putting more than one customer behind a single address. So a policy change to make the IPv4 space last longer for the big users would be impossible. There are two things we can do, however: - try to avoid destructive end-game behavior, for instance by imposing a maximum block size at one point - set aside a limited amount of IPv4 addresses (like the last 100 million addresses) for smaller address users rather than give the last bit to the large users There is however and interesting policy question: should we allow IPv4 addresses to be sold? Some people are in favor of this, but I don't see the upside of formally allowing it. (People are going to do it to some degree anyway.) The down side is that you can forget about getting back sizable legacy space chunks and people have even more of an incentive to hoard address space rather than use it. And this will break up the address space in much smaller fragments which doesn't help the routing table. With the advent of RIR-anchored address space certificates the RIRs must decide whether they allow trading or sub-delegation of address space or prohibit it. You are correct that we don't know wh
