Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On 07/03/2010, at 4:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn "dynamic >> IPv4 addresses" into "shared dynamic IPv4 addresses," we'll have enough >> spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future. >> > Ew... The more I hear people say this, the more I am _REALLY_ glad > I am unlikely to have to live behind such an environment. I cannot imagine > that this will provide anything remotely resembling a good user experience, To whom? My mom doesn't care, and isn't likely to ever notice. Gamers might care, but their gaming platforms are likely to be among the first to transition when the rubber meets the road, so they won't be significantly affected. P2P users already don't care because their apps use v6 already. You and I won't care, because we'll have v6 access to everything we need too. Content owners will care a fair bit at the beginning but less as time goes on, and more of their eyeballs become v6-enabled. There'll be bits of the internet that transition very, very quickly to dual-stack or straight-out IPv6, and there'll be other bits which won't. The impact of what I've suggested will be quarantined to that latter category. And frankly I can't see why anyone should be expected to invest engineering time and cost into solving a problem that only exists because the people who are causing it (by not transitioning to v6) expect everyone else to clean up their mess (by providing painless transition tools). To put it another way: The very last IPv4-only Internet user won't have any serious expectation that the rest of the world owes him/her an easy ride. So why should the last five of them, or the last 1000 of them, or even the last billion of them? There'll be a sliding scale of care-factor, and my guess is that it won't take very long to get to the bottom of it, and that the significant bulk of the transition will happen faster than anyone expects. > or, even close to the current degraded user experience most people tolerate > behind their current NAT devices. Sucks to be them. They'd better upgrade then, hadn't they? >> If I have half a million residential subscribers and I can get ten >> subscribers onto each NATted IPv4 addresses, then I only need 50,000 >> addresses to service them. Yet I have half a million addresses >> *right now*, which I won't be giving back to my RIR. So that turns >> into 450,000 saleable addresses for premium customers after the >> SP-NAT box is turned on, right? >> > Interesting way of thinking about it. I suspect that rather than pay your > premium prices, the customers you just degraded in order to charge > them more for the service they had will look to your competitors for > better service. My competitors will have the same problem with the same array of available solutions with the same mixtures of cost, benefit and care-factor. Odds are that they'll probably make many of the same decisions. Sorry, perhaps I'm missing something here, but is there a general expectation that the v4-v6 transition is going to be an easy ride for everyone? - mark -- Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2010-03-07 14:21 +0800), Owen DeLong wrote: > >> While it is more complete than many other countries, there are still rural >> areas where it is not, and, the relatively high churn rate in competitive >> markets will actually still lead to a need for increasing address allocations >> and assignments as customers move from ISPs that already have space >> for them to ISPs that need more space. > > My wording could have been better, by 'mostly complete' I was trying to be > in mindset of company offering products and service over Internet. I think > US is somewhere between 65-70& BB penetration? Companies might feel the > part of the country not having BB accesss are not potential customers, > perhaps due to lack of purchase power. Us is somewhere close to 90% BB penetration in urban areas and closer to 30% in rural areas. Overall, that makes 65-70%. My point was that the raw 65-70% number is misleading because of the strong dichotomy between urban and rural instances in the US. While you may be right that some larger national companies may not feel the impact, do not underestimate the number of companies that depend on providing and delivering local content to these rural markets as well. Given the number of initiatives to expand rural broadband within the US, such as BTOP, I think there is potential here. > Interestingly enough, here local incumbent ex-monopoly started removing > DSLAM network from remote rural areas, quoting it being unprofitable. > That would probably not happen here unless it was replaced by an alternative technology for the same market, lest it attract the attention of regulators. Additionally, one of the largest broadband providers in the US is Comcast. I suspect that of the US markets which are monopoly or duopoly Comcast is probably present in a majority of those markets. They have expressed a definite strategy for moving to IPv6 and enabling their residential customers to have IPv6 services. I think this fact will make it difficult for their competition to offer less and get away with it. >> If you look at the ARIN consumption statistics, or, the RIPE consumption >> statistics, there is certainly no indication that the demand for addresses >> has been significantly reduced in EU+US. > > But have these addresses been mostly delivered to new home users? Or have > they been to new companies offering products and services? > The largest address consumers even today as I understand it are the residential "eye-ball" ISPs. However, even if it is new companies offering products and services, then, it will not take long after IPv4 runout for there to be a critical mass of IPv6-only companies in this area of the net. Either way, I think that IPv4 runout, in addition to creating a temporary train-wreck of end-user experiences for IPv4 content, will accelerate deployment of IPv6 on both sides of the equation and that any acceleration on one side will drive further acceleration on the other. >> It may not bring you new business, but, it may be necessary to avoid losing >> the business you have. Most businesses that are built on an MRR model >> have to pay attention to that. Generally speaking, customer retention is >> regarded as important in most such organizations. > > I can't see end users currently having IPv4 connectivity changing to > provider who can't provide access to IPv4 sites. Which I believe would > translate that all existing users will continue to have access to the > service. > No, but, if their choice is between a current provider which offers extremely degraded IPv4 services without IPv6 and a provider which offers IPv6 services and a similarly degraded service which only affects IPv4-only content, I can see them switching rapidly towards the latter. >> I think at least the first several such startups will be able to get space >> out >> of the /10 reserved for transitional technologies to provide front-end >> proxies and such for their services. Startup eye-ball ISPs may be at >> a greater disadvantage for a relatively short period of time as they will >> essentially have to deploy an IPv6 customer network along side a >> technology such as NAT64 or DS-LITE. However, the more of these >> are created, the more pressure there is for content and service providers >> to provide native IPv6 availability of their content and services, so, I >> think >> it will rapidly solve itself on that level. > > I really hope you are correct. But I fear only way to fix the situation is > to force IPv6 connectivity down the throat of every existing IPv4 end-user. I hope not, because that simply won't happen. > Some companies sellings products and services might even find the new > situation favourable, by not deploying IPv6, they make sure that users > won't change to IPv6 only service as they need to reach the site, and thus > they would be protecting themselves of new competition, who can only offer > the service ov
Sponsoring request Piratenpartij Nederland
Pardon the interruption regarding this somewhat unusual request, but please forward this to your sponsoring/donations/legal/lobbying department: -- Dear Internet Industry representatives: The Pirate Party Netherlands ( Piratenpartij Nederland), which is concerned with online and offline civil rights and a revision (reduction) of copyright law, is planning to take part in the upcoming parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. Although participation in the elections is open to all parties, it is not without costs. Therefore, the Pirate Party needs external funding from both individuals and organisations which share our vision. The costs which we incur are the following: - EUR 11250.- deposit to the election council (www.kiesraad.nl), to be recieved back if the party attains 75% of one parliamentary seat. - EUR 450.- registration fee for political parties at election council (www.kiesraad.nl) - EUR 500.- notary costs - EUR 150.- chamber of commerce registration (formal association with legal personality) - Online and offline advertising and campaign costs That is why we ask organisations and individuals for contributions to Pirate Party Netherlands. More information can be found at: http://staging.piratenpartij.nl/ Kind regards, representing Pirate Party Netherlands Rogier Huurman, Secretary Pirate Party Netherlands Sven Olaf Kamphuis, Member Piratenpartei Deutschland Member Piratenpartij Nederland Contact: Samir Allioui, Co-President at Pirate Parties International Chairman Piratenpartij Nederland +31627588738 samir.ali...@piratenpartij.nl -- Geachte vertegenwoordigers van de Internet Industrie, De Piratenpartij Nederland, die zich inzet voor online en offline burgerrechten alsmede een herziening (beperking) van de auteursrechten, is voornemens deel te nemen aan de komende verkiezingen voor de Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal. Deelname aan de verkiezingen is dan wel vrij voor iedereen, maar het is zeker niet gratis. De Piratenpartij heeft daarom behoefte aan externe financiC+le injecties van zowel particulieren als organisaties die zich door onze standpunten aangesproken voelen. De kosten die wij moeten maken zijn als volgt: - 11250 euro borgstelling voor de kiesraad (www.kiesraad.nl), terug te ontvangen van de kiesraad door de partij bij het halen van 0.75e deel van 1 zetel - 450 euro eenmalige inschrijvingskosten kieslijst (www.kiesraad.nl) - 500 euro notariskosten - 150 euro kamer van koophandel (formele vereniging met rechtspersoon) - Online en offline advertentie- en campagnekosten Wij vragen daarom organisaties en particulieren om bijdragen ten bate van de Piratenpartij Nederland. Verdere informatie is beschikbaar op http://staging.piratenpartij.nl/ Met vriendelijke groet, namens Piratenpartij Nederland, Rogier Huurman, Secretary Pirate Party Netherlands Sven Olaf Kamphuis, Lid Piratenpartei Deutschland Lid Piratenpartei Nederland Contact: Samir Allioui, Co-President at Pirate Parties International Voorzitter Piratenpartij Nederland +31627588738 samir.ali...@piratenpartij.nl -- PiratenPartij Nederland Postbus 58006 NL-1040 HA Amsterdam The Netherlands
Re: IP4 Space
On 06/03/2010 21:32, Shon Elliott wrote: > I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is > really tough to remember and understand for most people. Roll out DNS before you roll out v6 then. > basically, you need technical knowledge to even understand how the IP address > is > split up. By split up, do you mean subnetting ? You have to have technical knowledge to understand CIDR in v4, and once you do you will understand subnetting in v6 too. These excuses are really false and old. Forget the reasons why you can't roll v6. Do a little bit of work for your v6 roll out every day, and it will be done in a few months. Assuming you have made v6 support part of your purchasing policy by now. Andy
Re: IP4 Space
* Thomas Magill: > 1.Why don't providers use /31 addresses for P2P links? This > works fine per rfc 3021 but nobody seems to believe it or use it. Are > there any major manufacturers out there that do not support it? Not all vendors support it, especially not over Ethernet. > 2. Longer than /24 prefixes in global BGP table. The most obvious > answer is that some hardware may not handle it... I think the main problem today is update rate, not actual prefix count. In any case, it seems rather unlikely that less aggregation brings more IP addresses into play. Smaller RIR allocations, perhaps, but beyond the /24 barrier, you'll soon have better global connectivity over IPv6.
RE: SDSL vs T1 (was Locations with no good Internet)
> -Original Message- > From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msoko...@ivan.harhan.org] > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:35 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: SDSL vs T1 (was Locations with no good Internet) > > Roy wrote: > > > You missed an option. Just change to another ISP. I know of at > least > > one AS701 address block still attached to a company that hasn't been > > their customer for ten years or so. > > How is that possible? AFAIK no local politician has passed an IP > address portability law yet. If my circuit from VZB were disconnected, > wouldn't they release the address block for reuse by other customers > just like any other ISP? The government doesn't own IP addresses so there is no need to pass any such laws. I suppose it is completely legal to sever a transit agreement for traffic with a provider but maintain a business relationship where you pay them a fee for the use of the IP address space. There have been several instances in my career where I have used prefixes issued by a carrier that I never announced to them. I was using their IP space but the traffic to those addresses never went through their network. In some cases I have maintained a relationship with them such as having a thin pipe where I might pay some small monthly fee in order to retain the IP address space but simply paying someone to allow you to keep IP addresses isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On (2010-03-07 14:21 +0800), Owen DeLong wrote: > While it is more complete than many other countries, there are still rural > areas where it is not, and, the relatively high churn rate in competitive > markets will actually still lead to a need for increasing address allocations > and assignments as customers move from ISPs that already have space > for them to ISPs that need more space. My wording could have been better, by 'mostly complete' I was trying to be in mindset of company offering products and service over Internet. I think US is somewhere between 65-70& BB penetration? Companies might feel the part of the country not having BB accesss are not potential customers, perhaps due to lack of purchase power. Interestingly enough, here local incumbent ex-monopoly started removing DSLAM network from remote rural areas, quoting it being unprofitable. > If you look at the ARIN consumption statistics, or, the RIPE consumption > statistics, there is certainly no indication that the demand for addresses > has been significantly reduced in EU+US. But have these addresses been mostly delivered to new home users? Or have they been to new companies offering products and services? > It may not bring you new business, but, it may be necessary to avoid losing > the business you have. Most businesses that are built on an MRR model > have to pay attention to that. Generally speaking, customer retention is > regarded as important in most such organizations. I can't see end users currently having IPv4 connectivity changing to provider who can't provide access to IPv4 sites. Which I believe would translate that all existing users will continue to have access to the service. > I think at least the first several such startups will be able to get space out > of the /10 reserved for transitional technologies to provide front-end > proxies and such for their services. Startup eye-ball ISPs may be at > a greater disadvantage for a relatively short period of time as they will > essentially have to deploy an IPv6 customer network along side a > technology such as NAT64 or DS-LITE. However, the more of these > are created, the more pressure there is for content and service providers > to provide native IPv6 availability of their content and services, so, I think > it will rapidly solve itself on that level. I really hope you are correct. But I fear only way to fix the situation is to force IPv6 connectivity down the throat of every existing IPv4 end-user. Some companies sellings products and services might even find the new situation favourable, by not deploying IPv6, they make sure that users won't change to IPv6 only service as they need to reach the site, and thus they would be protecting themselves of new competition, who can only offer the service over IPv6. > > I would personally hope that EU+US would mandate that residential ISP add > > IPv6 to their subscribers by default, without possibility to opt-out in > > n years time. Hopefully n would be no more than 3. > > > I wouldn't hold my breath on that. It simply doesn't map to the regulatory > framework and culture prevalent in the US at this time. Quite right, but EU has history requiring rather more silly things, especially if it means getting free money with ridiculous monopoly claims. -- ++ytti
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On (2010-03-07 08:41 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote: > Not implementing IPv6 will start to lose them business soon as they > won't be able to reach IPv6 only sites. Not quite yet but soon. While > all the services that there customers want to reach are available over > IPv4 they will be fine. Once they are not they people will start to > leave for a competitor that does offer IPv6 access. I'm not so optimistic users would migrate to new ISP because some sites do not work, sites which they have not accustomed to use and thus haven't learned to care about. Before this could happen, there would need to be many IPv6 only sites offering services and products successfully, these sites would need to survive competing against IPv4 sites, who will have vastly larger potential customer base. I fear companies offering products and services refuse to try to compete against IPv4 sites, so they'll do everything they can to acquire IPv4 address or give up the attempt to survive with IPv6 only. > ISP's need to be asking themselves how much business are they willing to > lose before they deploy IPv6. If they answer is "none" they should be > moving now. You are certainly right in APAC and Africa, I truly hope there would be business impact in EU+US too, I fear businesses might not experience it. -- ++ytti
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:07:47 +0800, Owen DeLong said: > Interesting way of thinking about it. I suspect that rather than pay your > premium prices, the customers you just degraded in order to charge > them more for the service they had will look to your competitors for > better service. I suspect that in many areas, the incumbent monopoly/duopoly has done a sufficiently good job of lowering customer expectations to do this. They've already been marketing what should be baseline service as "premium" for years already, and I'm not seeing much motivation for them to change. pgp5ulN0gMHX5.pgp Description: PGP signature
