Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007, Joe Abley wrote: > It seems like the pertinent question here is: what is stopping DSL > (or cable) providers in Australia and New Zealand from selling N x > meg DSL service at low enough prices to avoid the need for a data > cap? Is it the cost of crossing an ocean which makes the risk of > unlimited service too great to implement, or something else? The popular content is still international and the population density sucks in a lot of places. I note that no ISP runs "free local bandwidth" anymore at least in Western Australia because it started impacting on the ability to send data back to the client through the DSL aggregation network. Me, I think the network design needs to change to not be so PPPoE-to-the-nearest-capital-city, but ISPs keep telling me "its a great idea - but our current structure is fine, why try to change it?". I understand the economic reasons (upgrading the network to route IP all the way out to the exchanges and let customers talk to other customers and across IX fabrics without potentially crossing the same god damned wholesaler L2TP-tunnelled network == expensive) but its gotta change someday. Me, I wonder why the heck cheap services -in the CBDs- don't seem to be popular.. Adrian
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On 10/4/07, Hex Star <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones > while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? > Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP? One early US cable modem company started propagating the "Don't Let Customers Run Anything Resembling a Server" meme to many other ISPs, primarily cable but also DSL. One early Australian cable company started propagating the "Don't Let Customers Download More than X MB/month" meme, and while it hasn't been picked up as widely, there are a number of ISPs that have adopted it. At one time Australia did have a relatively small amount of Internet bandwidth and a large non-data-clueful dominant carrier, which had only gradually been bullied into accepting that there were data customers who wanted an E1 line because they wanted the whole 2Mbps for one medium-sized data channel as opposed to 30 channels of boringly slow 64kbps (perceived by the carrier to be blazingly fast...) So they charged their users a lot to download data from outside; I forget if they were the ones who had a cheaper rate for data downloaded from inside Australia or not. But outside the Land of Oz, it used to be that European PTTs also charged excessive amounts of money for connections around their countries or across borders. That's changed radically with liberalization. And of course Japan and Korea charge minimal amounts for huge home broadband bandwidth - Korea has about triple the population of Australia, in much smaller land area, and while it's not quite as far from Silicon Valley as Australia is, and of course it's much closer to Tokyo, it's still got to cost a bit to run the cables there. -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: [OT] "Happy Birthday, Sputnik! (Thanks for the Internet)"
Happy bday!
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >>> That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT >>> box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of >>> whatever the rest of the community thinks. >> >> And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP >> sessions, etc fail. > >Somehow we made it work for v4. How did that happen? The problem is that NAT constrains the solution space available to application developers. I have no problem with PT-NAT to get to IPv4 because the IPv4 space is already constrained by the existing use of NAT. Most/many of the existing applications have been crippled by the existance of NAT. Almost no-one attempts to run the passive side (server) of a connection behind a NAT. With PAT try running more services that use the same port than you have public addresses. It just won't work. Similarly double or tripple NAT further reduce the application space that works. Even hotels realise NAT is bad. Have you notice that you now get asked if you can live behind the NAT or do you need a public address when you register? I work from behind a NAT as I work from home. There have been lots of things that should have been simple, but wern't, as that NAT was there. Something just didn't work because I couldn't find a ALG for that protocol. I have a big problem with pulling those constraints into IPv6. Without NAT I can, if needed, open up a complete address in the firewall to work around lack if a ALG. I don't get that choice with NAT. Mark
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
> On 4-Oct-2007, at 1416, Joe Greco wrote: > > It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an > > unlimited > > US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an > > unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to > > look > > at where the quotas lie on the curve in both the US and AU. > > I think the implication here is that there's a smoothing effect that > comes with large customer bases. Probably not even "large" customer bases. > For example, I remember back to when DSL was first rolled out in New > Zealand. It was priced well beyond the means of any normal > residential user, and as a result DSL customers tended to be just the > people who would consume a lot of external bandwidth. > > At around the same time, my wife's mother in Ontario, Canada got > hooked up with a cablemodem on the grounds that unlimited cable > internet service cost less than a second phone line (she was fed up > with missing phone calls when she was checking her mail). > > She used/uses her computer mainly for e-mail, although she > occasionally uses a browser. (These days I'm sure legions of > miscreants are using her computer too, but back then we were pre- > botnet). > > If you have mainly customers like my mother-in-law, with just a few > heavy users, the cost per user is nice and predictable, and you don't > need to worry too much about usage caps. > > If you have mainly heavy users, the cost per user has the potential > to be enormous. > > It seems like the pertinent question here is: what is stopping DSL > (or cable) providers in Australia and New Zealand from selling N x > meg DSL service at low enough prices to avoid the need for a data > cap? Is it the cost of crossing an ocean which makes the risk of > unlimited service too great to implement, or something else? Quite frankly, this touches on one aspect, but I think it misses entirely others. Right now, we have a situation where some ISP's are essentially cherry picking desirable customers. This can be done by many methods, ranging from providing slow "basic DSL" services, or placing quotas on service, or TOS restrictions, all the way to terminating the service of high- volume customers. A customer who gives you $40/mo for a 5Mbps connection and uses a few gig a month is certainly desirable. By either telling the high volume customers that they're going to be capped, or actually terminating their services, you're discouraging those who are unprofitable. It makes sense, from the ISP's limited view. However, I then think about the big picture. Ten years ago, hard drives were maybe 10GB, CPU's were maybe 100MHz, a performance "workstation" PC had maybe 64MB RAM, and a Road Runner cable connection was, I believe, about 2 megabits. Today, hard drives are up to 1000GB (x100), CPU's are quadcore at 2.6GHz (approximately x120 performance), a generous PC will have 8GB RAM (x128), and ... that Road Runner, at least here in Milwaukee, is a blazing 5Mbps... or _2.5x_ what it was. Now, ISP economics pretty much require that some amount of overcommit will happen. However, if you have a 12GB quota, that works out to around 36 kilobits/sec average. Assuming the ISP is selling 10Mbps connections (and bearing in mind that ADSL2 can certainly go more than that), what that's saying is that the average user can use 1/278th of their connection. I would imagine that the overcommit rate is much higher than that. Note: I'm assuming the quota is monthly, as it seems to be for most AU ISP's I've looked at, for example: http://www.ozemail.com.au/products/broadband/plans.html Anyways, my concern is that while technology seems to have improved quite substantially in terms of what computers are capable of, our communications capacity is being stifled by ISP's that are stuck back in speeds (and policies) appropriate for the year 2000. Continued growth and evolution of cellular networks, for example, have taken cell phones from a premium niche service with large bag phones and extremely slow data services, up to new spiffy high technology where you can download YouTube on an iPhone and watch videos on a pocket-sized device. What are we missing out on because ISP's are more interested in keeping bandwidth use low? What fantastic new technologies haven't been developed because they were deemed impractical given the state of the Internet? Time to point out that, at least in the US, we allowed this to be done to ourselves... http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:50:11 +0100 Leigh Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to > cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by > monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US. > I don't necessarily think it is only that. Customers on ADSL2+ usually get the maximum ADSL2+ speed their line will support, so customers can have speeds of up to 24Mbps downstream. Download and/or upload quotas have an effect of smoothing out the backhaul impact those high bandwidth customers could make. As they could use up all their quota in such a short time period at those speeds, and once they exceed their quota they'd get their speed shaped down to something like 64Kbps, it typically forces the customer to make their bandwidth usage patterns more bursty rather than a constant. That effect, averaged across a "backhaul region" helps avoid having to provision backhaul bandwidth for a much higher constant load. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On 4-Oct-2007, at 1416, Joe Greco wrote: It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an unlimited US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to look at where the quotas lie on the curve in both the US and AU. I think the implication here is that there's a smoothing effect that comes with large customer bases. For example, I remember back to when DSL was first rolled out in New Zealand. It was priced well beyond the means of any normal residential user, and as a result DSL customers tended to be just the people who would consume a lot of external bandwidth. At around the same time, my wife's mother in Ontario, Canada got hooked up with a cablemodem on the grounds that unlimited cable internet service cost less than a second phone line (she was fed up with missing phone calls when she was checking her mail). She used/uses her computer mainly for e-mail, although she occasionally uses a browser. (These days I'm sure legions of miscreants are using her computer too, but back then we were pre- botnet). If you have mainly customers like my mother-in-law, with just a few heavy users, the cost per user is nice and predictable, and you don't need to worry too much about usage caps. If you have mainly heavy users, the cost per user has the potential to be enormous. It seems like the pertinent question here is: what is stopping DSL (or cable) providers in Australia and New Zealand from selling N x meg DSL service at low enough prices to avoid the need for a data cap? Is it the cost of crossing an ocean which makes the risk of unlimited service too great to implement, or something else? Joe
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote: > > Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones > > while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some > > kind of added cost running a non US ISP? > > Depending upon the country you're in, that is a possibility. Some > countries have either state-run or monopolistic telcos, so there is little > or no competition to force prices down over time. > > Even in the US, there is a huge variability in the price of telco services > from one part of the country to another. Taking a slightly different approach to the question, it's obvious that overcommit continues to be a problem for ISP's, both in the States and abroad. It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an unlimited US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to look at where the quotas lie on the curve in both the US and AU. Regardless, I believe that there is a certain amount of shortsightedness on the part of service providers who are looking at bandwidth management as the cure to their bandwidth ills. It seems clear that the Internet will remain central to our communications needs for many years, and that delivery of content such as video will continue to increase. End users do not care to know that they have a "quota" or that their quota can be filled by a relatively modest amount of content. Remember that a 1Mbps connection can download ~330GB/mo, so the aforementioned 12GB is nearly *line noise* on a multimegabit DSL or cable line. Continued reliance on broadband users using tiny percentages of their broadband connection certainly makes the ISP business model easier, but in the long term, isn't going to work out well for the Internet's continuing evolution. And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the ball in a major way here in the United States, as well. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote: Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP? Depending upon the country you're in, that is a possibility. Some countries have either state-run or monopolistic telcos, so there is little or no competition to force prices down over time. Even in the US, there is a huge variability in the price of telco services from one part of the country to another. jms Hint: whenever/wherever service providers are able to secure the majority of their essential inputs on a predictable fixed cost basis (e.g., circuits rather than variable IP transit), they tend to extend the same pricing model to their customers. However, in some cases there is a major lag separating the timing of the change in the provider-level cost model and the change in customer-facing pricing. Absent competition, the lag may be infinite. In other cases, there may be more variable costs associated with service delivery than is immediately obvious. Southern Cross was completed in late 2000, and not long after (couple of years) incumbent operators in AUNZ had done a pretty good job of leveraging the new infrastructure to effect just the sort of variable- to-fixed cost conversion described above. Marginal improvements in customer pricing are just starting to happen in the last year or so... TV
[OT] "Happy Birthday, Sputnik! (Thanks for the Internet)"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9036482&intsrc=hm_list regards, /virendra -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHBSPppbZvCIJx1bcRAlPHAKDVPkrZpUejzfhHscBaYDtCtbVlOACg3z4o bWBAdiRi7n7KDhfFnJbu7z8= =IAhj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote: Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP? Depending upon the country you're in, that is a possibility. Some countries have either state-run or monopolistic telcos, so there is little or no competition to force prices down over time. Even in the US, there is a huge variability in the price of telco services from one part of the country to another. jms
RE: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin
You're right, they've shuffled things around. Try this form: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/postmaster/defer.html Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:55 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin We've been having trouble sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Getting the infamous 421 Message from (x.x.x.x) temporarily deferred - 4.16.50. Please refer to http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-06.html. When I follow the referred link I get to http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/abuse/abuse-60.html, which then points you to this URL: http://help.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/mail/cgi_defer which is supposed to be a form. Sadly, that link loops you back to the Yahoo mail login page. Once you login your choices are quite limited and are for basic E-mail help. I've tried contacting yahoo through those links but I get a canned reply. It's been over a month of consistent deliverability issues to Yahoo and we're not one step closer to solving the problem. The one thing I did notice is when I modified SPF to include the IP address instead of the domain of the deferred MTA, E-mail would get through, but only for a few days then it was back to deferral. I've read the older posts on NANOG and various gripes about Yahoo greylisting on google but all the leads have come to a dead end. Does anyone know an interactive yahoo contact they could share with me? Thank you, Justin Wilson
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 2-okt-2007, at 15:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Second, the ALGs will have to be (re)written anyways to deal with IPv6 stateful firewalls, whether or not NAT-PT happens. That's one solution. I like the hole punching better because it's more general purpose and better adheres to the principle of least astonishment. ALGs are just automated hole-punching. That's the purpose of an ALG. Requiring users to modify their home router config or put in a change request with their IT department for a firewall exception is a non-starter if you want your app to be accepted. Hence uPnP and NAT-PMP plus about half a dozen protocols the IETF is working on. uPNP is moderately successful in the consumer space; it still doesn't work very well today, and it won't work at all in a few years when ISPs are forced to put consumers behind their own NAT boxes because they can't get any more v4 addresses. None of those protocols are being seriously considered by business folks. ALGs are here to stay. If the NAT/FW box can recognize a SIP call, or an active FTP transfer, or whatever and open the pinhole on its own, why is that a bad thing? Since it's the NAT/FW box that's breaking things, it's the NAT/FW box's responsibility to minimize that breakage -- not rely on hosts to tell it when a pinhole needs to be opened. Huh? They both do, that's the point. (Although the former doesn't work for everything and the latter removes the "IPv6-only" status from the host if not from the network it connects to.) The former only handles outbound TCP traffic, which works through pure NAT boxes as it is. BitTorrent is TCP, but it sure doesn't like NAT because it gets in the way of incoming sessions. Of course. It doesn't help that many ISPs are filtering inbound SYN packets specifically to block (or at least severely degrade the performance of) P2P apps. The latter "solution" ignores the problem space by telling people to not be v4-only anymore. Decoding IPv4 packets on a host is trivial, they already have all the necessary code on board. It's building an IPv4 network that's a burden. Today, at least, it's less of a burden to build a NATed v4 network than it is to try to get v6 working end-to-end (with or without NAT). There is a difference between the networks and the hosts. Upgrading networks to dual stack isn't that hard, because it's built of only a limited number of different devices. *giggle* You mean like the 90% of hosts that will be running Vista (which has v6 enabled by default) within a couple years? Or the other 10% of hosts that have had v6 enabled for years? The problem isn't the hosts. It isn't even really the core network. It's all the middleboxes between the two that are v4-only and come from dozens of different clue-impaired vendors. You forget that the majority of applications need to be changed to work over IPv6. The majority of bits moved are via apps that support v6. One of the benefits of NAT-PT is all those legacy v4-only apps can stay exactly how they are (at least until the next regular upgrade, if any) and talk to v6 servers, or to other v4 servers across a v6-only network. On 2-okt-2007, at 16:10, Stephen Sprunk wrote: You just open up a hole in the firewall where appropriate. You obviously have no experience working in security. Who wants those headaches? You can't trust the OS (Microsoft? hah!), you can't trust the application (malware), and you sure as heck can't trust the user (industrial espionage and/or social engineering). The only way that address-embedding protocols can work through a firewall, whether it's doing NAT or not, is to use an ALG. You assume a model where some trusted party is in charge of a firewall that separates an untrustworthy outside and an untrustworthy inside. This isn't exactly the trust model for most consumer networks. Yes, it is. Or at least it should be. There is no "trusted" side of a firewall these days. Even a decade ago it was recognized that the majority of attacks were from the "inside". With the advent of worms and viruses (spread by insecure host software), "outside" attackers are almost irrelevant compared to "inside" attackers. Also, consumer networks are not the only relevant networks. There are arguably just as many hosts on enterprise networks, and the attitudes and practices of their admins (regardless of technical correctness) need to be considered. Also, why would you be able to trust what's inside the control protocol that the ALG looks at any better than anything else? You can't completely, and obviously ALGs would fail completely if IPsec ever took off (in fact, that may be one reason it hasn't), but in practice it's the best option we have today. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
Caribbean has the same problem, though... .smaller countries, less ability to negotiate bandwidth usage/cost... bananas for bandwidth program. Leigh Porter wrote: Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US. Also there may be more tax costs, staff costs, equipment costs with import duty etc which obviously means buying more equipment to support more throughput costs more money. -- Leigh Hex Star wrote: Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP? -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: Paramaribo, Suriname [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Leigh Porter wrote: > Also there may be more tax costs, staff costs, equipment costs with > import duty etc which obviously means buying more equipment to support > more throughput costs more money. The biggest issues are the transmission costs to get to the USA. There are basically two cable systems, Southern Cross and AJC (we'll ignore SEA-ME-WE-3 because you can only buy STM-1's on it, and who wants to mess around with trivialities like that?) Ask an economist what happens to prices in duopoly environments. The cost of crossing the Pacific is north of US$200 per megabit per month in .au, which I reckon is about ten times what it costs you Europeans to get across the Atlantic (or what it costs the Japanese to cross the very same Pacific) There are a few cable projects underway at the moment which may break the duopoly, e.g., http://www.pipenetworks.com/docs/media/ASX_07_08_09%20Runway%20Update%204%20-%20BSa.pdf I suspect we're going to have an interesting few years. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
Hex Star wrote: Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP? There are more than a few US ISPs that have bandwidth quotas, mostly in the last-mile fixed-wireless space. I imagine the cost of backhauling traffic a few thousand miles in underseas cables would add to the cost of running an ISP in, say, Australia, especially since many sites the end-users will want to see are still hosted in the US. David Smith MVN.net
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US. Also there may be more tax costs, staff costs, equipment costs with import duty etc which obviously means buying more equipment to support more throughput costs more money. -- Leigh Hex Star wrote: > Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones > while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some > kind of added cost running a non US ISP? > >
Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
RE: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin
We've been having trouble sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Getting the infamous 421 Message from (x.x.x.x) temporarily deferred - 4.16.50. Please refer to http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-06.html. When I follow the referred link I get to http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/abuse/abuse-60.html, which then points you to this URL: http://help.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/mail/cgi_defer which is supposed to be a form. Sadly, that link loops you back to the Yahoo mail login page. Once you login your choices are quite limited and are for basic E-mail help. I've tried contacting yahoo through those links but I get a canned reply. It's been over a month of consistent deliverability issues to Yahoo and we're not one step closer to solving the problem. The one thing I did notice is when I modified SPF to include the IP address instead of the domain of the deferred MTA, E-mail would get through, but only for a few days then it was back to deferral. I've read the older posts on NANOG and various gripes about Yahoo greylisting on google but all the leads have come to a dead end. Does anyone know an interactive yahoo contact they could share with me? Thank you, Justin Wilson
RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
> Well, if 95% of the people in a position to do this think > it's worth repeating this effort for IPv6, my objections > aren't going to stop them. But if the majority or even a > significant minority don't want to play, then IPv6 NAT is > going to work a lot worse than IPv4 NAT. What if only 5% of the people want to do this, and that 5% represents a couple of thousand people who configure enterprise network infrastructure. What if only 1% of that couple of thousand people are demanding that their router supplier supports NAT-PT. That is 20 enterprise customers that are telling their vendor to support NAT-PT or lose their business. In my experience 20 decision makers with purchasing power is more than enough to make things happen. > 5. Everyone do whatever suits their needs like what happened in IPv4 Since this is what is going to happen regardless of your survey, what is the point? Some of us are interested in getting things done now because the time for big architectural changes has long past. We have to work with the resources available to us today. > And: if people start using NAT in IPv6 I will: > > a. Implement ALGs and application workarounds to accommodate it > > b. Not do anything, it's their problem if stuff breaks > > c. Break stuff that goes through IPv6 NAT on purpose to prove a point d. Do whatever my employer decides is appropriate, i.e. some A, some B and don't even think about C or you'll be on the street before lunchtime! You may know a lot about IPv6 network design but you don't understand survey design very well. --Michael Dillon
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On 4-okt-2007, at 13:36, Eliot Lear wrote: That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of whatever the rest of the community thinks. And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP sessions, etc fail. Somehow we made it work for v4. How did that happen? (Hm, RTSP fails miserably when I use NAT on my Cisco 826...) Well, if 95% of the people in a position to do this think it's worth repeating this effort for IPv6, my objections aren't going to stop them. But if the majority or even a significant minority don't want to play, then IPv6 NAT is going to work a lot worse than IPv4 NAT. And although it's clear that some people want IPv6 NAT, IPv6 NAT is not nearly as useful as IPv4 NAT, because IPv6 has more than enough addresses for any conceivable use without it. I would be interested to know how many people favor each of the following approaches. Feel free to send me private email and I'll summerize. 1. Keep NAT and ALGs out of IPv6 and use additional protocols between hosts and firewalls to open "pinholes" in firewalls (where appropriate/allowed, such as in consumer installations) to avoid ALGs 2. Keep NAT out of IPv6 but use ALGs to bypass firewalls 3. Come up with a standard way of doing 1-to-1 NAT (no PAT) in IPv6 4. Come up with a standard way of doing NAT/PAT in IPv6 5. Everyone do whatever suits their needs like what happened in IPv4 And: if people start using NAT in IPv6 I will: a. Implement ALGs and application workarounds to accommodate it b. Not do anything, it's their problem if stuff breaks c. Break stuff that goes through IPv6 NAT on purpose to prove a point
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT >> box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of >> whatever the rest of the community thinks. > > And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP > sessions, etc fail. Somehow we made it work for v4. How did that happen?
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems
On 3-okt-2007, at 14:14, John Curran wrote: I'd rather have IPv4 with massive NAT and IPv6 without NAT than both IPv4 and IPv6 with moderate levels of NAT. That's great, guys, if "IPv4 with massive levels of NAT" actually resembles today's Internet and is actually a viable choice. It doesn't have to be viable. If it isn't, that's good reason for people to move to IPv6. Once free pool depletion occurs and address reuse enters the equation, we've got high demand for block fragmentation and a tragedy of the commons situation where everyone's motivations are to inject their longer prefixes and yell at others not to do the same. Good reason to start working on that IPv6 transition plan while there is still time.
