Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Now that is what Baldrick* would call "a cunning plan!"
And interesting examples. 

Christian

*Apologies to Tony Robinson and Blackadder

On 12 Mar 2011, at 18:52, Tom Limoncelli wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli  wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already 
>>> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol 
>>> and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm writing an article where I want to say that but I can't find an
>> article I can reference to back it up.
>> 
>> I don't want to accidentally encourage an urban legend or rumor.  (For
>> example, I can't find verification to the rumor that ARIN rejected a
>> request from LTE providers for IPv4 space and instead told them to go
>> straight to IPv6.  I do others in this thread saying that native IPv4
>> on LTE is common, so unless someone can give me evidence, I'll have to
>> update that part of the article.  OMG i'd love to make that point;
>> anyone have proof?).
>> 
>> I could, instead, write, "most carriers will probably roll IPv6 out as
>> part of their 4G upgrade" but that sounds wishy-washy.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Tom
>> 
>> --
>> http://EverythingSysadmin.com  -- my blog (new posts Mon and Wed)
>> http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my advice (more videos coming soon)
>> 
> 
> The article I mentioned I was writing has been published and is now
> available on-line here:
> 
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1959015
> 
> Thanks for all the assistance both on this mailing list and the
> private email I received!
> 
> Tom Limoncelli
> http://www.EverythingSysadmin.com
> 
> -- 
> Sign up for my new class "Advanced Time Mgmt: Team Efficiency" at PICC!
> April 29-30, New Jersey, LOPSA PICC: www.picconf.org
> Dec 4-9, Boston, Usenix LISA, www.usenix.org/event/lisa11
> Dec 4-5, Boston, ACM CHIMIT, chimit.acm.org
> "Call for papers and talk proposals" open at LISA and CHIMIT!
> 

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Tom Limoncelli]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already 
>> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol 
>> and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>>
>
> I'm writing an article where I want to say that but I can't find an
> article I can reference to back it up.
>
> I don't want to accidentally encourage an urban legend or rumor.  (For
> example, I can't find verification to the rumor that ARIN rejected a
> request from LTE providers for IPv4 space and instead told them to go
> straight to IPv6.  I do others in this thread saying that native IPv4
> on LTE is common, so unless someone can give me evidence, I'll have to
> update that part of the article.  OMG i'd love to make that point;
> anyone have proof?).
>
> I could, instead, write, "most carriers will probably roll IPv6 out as
> part of their 4G upgrade" but that sounds wishy-washy.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Tom
>
> --
> http://EverythingSysadmin.com  -- my blog (new posts Mon and Wed)
> http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my advice (more videos coming soon)
>

The article I mentioned I was writing has been published and is now
available on-line here:

 http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1959015

Thanks for all the assistance both on this mailing list and the
private email I received!

Tom Limoncelli
http://www.EverythingSysadmin.com

-- 
Sign up for my new class "Advanced Time Mgmt: Team Efficiency" at PICC!
April 29-30, New Jersey, LOPSA PICC: www.picconf.org
Dec 4-9, Boston, Usenix LISA, www.usenix.org/event/lisa11
Dec 4-5, Boston, ACM CHIMIT, chimit.acm.org
"Call for papers and talk proposals" open at LISA and CHIMIT!

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> 
>>> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first 
>>> place?
> 
>>> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
> 
>> But last time I checked, the United States is in the ARIN region.  And ARIN 
>> did not exist when the US DoD got its space.  (In fact, I do believe the 
>> reason "IP space" exists is because the DoD paid someone to come up with the 
>> idea? :)
> 
> True, but how is all of that relevant?
> 
>> If the US DoD wants more space, it has to ask ARIN, right?  Are you 
>> suggesting it should deal with a different organization depending on which 
>> direction the IP addresses flow?
> 
>> Supposed it was space ARIN assigned the DoD?
> 
> Policies like giving each RIR one of the final five /8s were carefully 
> created to give each RIR equal access to address space. Automatically giving 
> legacy space to the RIR for the region that the holder of the legacy space is 
> in is incompatible with that, and means that ARIN will get virtually all of 
> it.
> 
> To me, it seems both natural and fair that legacy space (especially /8s) is 
> returned to IANA and then redistributed over the RIRs.
> 
> By the way, IANA only deals in /8s. However, a lot of people got legacy /16s 
> or other non-/8 sizes, so some /8s that are marked "legacy" actually contain 
> a lot of unused space. Each of those /8 is "administered" by a RIR, but it's 
> unclear (to me at least) whether that means that RIR gets to give out that 
> space in its region or not. And if not, what is supposed to happen with this 
> space. It's a significant amount, about half the size of the class E space:
> 
> RIR  Administerd byDelegated   Free
> 
> afrinic 33.55 M   8.71 M24.85 M
> apnic  100.66 M  77.95 M22.72 M
> arin   671.09 M 592.04 M79.05 M
> ripencc 67.11 M  63.01 M 4.10 M
> 

To the best of my knowledge, any RIR is free to allocate or assign any space it 
administers according to the policies
set by that RIRs policy development process.

If you feel that legacy resources returned to ARIN should be fed back to IANA, 
you are welcome to submit an
appropriate policy to the ARIN policy development process in order to encourage 
such an action. Absent such
a policy, I think your odds of achieving what you consider natural and fair are 
limited.

I think that what is considered natural and fair by some is not considered so 
by others.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually 
>> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
>> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
>> community.
> 
> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first 
> place?
> 
> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.

The same way people have returned to ARIN resources obtained from:
SRI Internic
Network Solutions Internic

ARIN is the successor registry and maintains the whois and in-addr data
for the blocks. An attempt to return them to IANA directly would probably be
met with a "go return these to ARIN" response. I don't know that for sure,
but, that is what I would expect.

As to ARIN getting the long end of the legacy stick, well, the ARIN region
got the long end of the costs of developing and making the early deployments
of the Internet, so, many of the legacy allocations and assignments are
within the ARIN region. This is simple historical fact. I'm not sure why anyone
feels we should attempt to revise history.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 17 feb 2011, at 17:35, George Bonser wrote:
> 
>> Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
>> Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.
> 
> You really think people will be communicating over the public internet using 
> IPv4 in 2031?
> 
For some minimal definition of two endpoints both of which are IPv4, sure.
It'll be across 4in6 tunnels or something like that, but, I'm sure there will 
still be die-hard
legacy systems doing that in 2031.

As to whether IPv4 will still be generally routed on the internet? I actually 
suspect that
will end before 2021 and might start winding down as early as 2014. Many people
think that is overly optimistic, but, I look at the scaling problems IPv4 
routing will face
in a post depletion world and I suspect the motivations to deprecate IPv4 will 
come on
strong and fast as a result.

Before you ask, no, I'm not going to promise to eat my column. (Hi Bob!)

> It will take a long time before the first people are going to turn off IPv4, 
> but once that starts there will be no stopping it and IPv4 will be gone very, 
> very quickly.
> 
Define long time. I'm thinking 3 to 5 years, maybe.

> (Of course there will be legacy stuff, just like some people are still 
> running IPX or AppleTalk today. I'm talking about the public internet here.)
> 
> Today people are complaining how annoying it is to have to learn new things 
> to be able to run IPv6, but that doesn't compare to how annoying it is to 
> have to learn OLD things to keep running a protocol that is way past its sell 
> by date. I still need to teach class A/B/C despite the fact that CIDR is old 
> enough to drink in most countries because without knowing that you can't 
> configure a Cisco router. That's annoying now. Think about how insane that 
> will be in the 2020s when the notion of requesting IPv4 addresses from an RIR 
> is ancient history and young people don't know any better than having a /64 
> on every LAN that is big enough to connect all ethernet NICs ever made.
> 
I am not convinced you can't configure a cisco router without knowing about 
classful addressing. True, you
will have to understand classful routing for the way Cisco displays routes to 
make sense to you, but, if you don't,
all that happens is you wonder why they display things so strangely, grouping 
these octet-bounded collections of
routes.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 18 feb 2011, at 14:10, Arturo Servin wrote:

>   When you talk about "unused" legacy space are you talking about the 
> "various" space or to the legacy space that is currently assigned but the 
> holders just require part of it? 

Legacy space (A) = all the /8s marked as "legacy" by IANA.

Used legacy space (B): addresses allocated/assigned according to one of the 
RIRs which falls within A.

Unused legacy space (C): A - B.

Examples: lots of class B networks, either they were never given out or they 
were returned. And 45/8 minus 45.0.0.0/15.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Arturo Servin]

Iljitsch,

In deed there were ERX unused space that were divided among RIRs, I 
think it is referred as "various ERX" (pointed out by Tore). 

http://bgp.potaroo.net/stats/nro/various.html

There were also ERX space transferred from ARIN DB (used to be in 
InterNIC's) to RIRs because legacy holders were in the RIR region:

http://www.lacnic.net/en/erx.html

When you talk about "unused" legacy space are you talking about the 
"various" space or to the legacy space that is currently assigned but the 
holders just require part of it? 

Regards,
-as

On 18 Feb 2011, at 09:36, Tore Anderson wrote:

> * Iljitsch van Beijnum
> 
>> By the way, IANA only deals in /8s. However, a lot of people got
>> legacy /16s or other non-/8 sizes, so some /8s that are marked
>> "legacy" actually contain a lot of unused space. Each of those /8 is
>> "administered" by a RIR, but it's unclear (to me at least) whether
>> that means that RIR gets to give out that space in its region or not.
> 
> The unused space in the ERX blocks were divided evenly between the RIRs
> a couple of years ago, see:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilson-to-conrad-28jan08-en.pdf
> http://bgp.potaroo.net/stats/nro/various.html
> 
> I believe «administered by» simply means that the RIR is the one
> providing reverse DNS services for the block in question.
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Tore Anderson
> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
> Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 18, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> 
>>> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first 
>>> place?
> 
>>> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
> 
>> But last time I checked, the United States is in the ARIN region.  And ARIN 
>> did not exist when the US DoD got its space.  (In fact, I do believe the 
>> reason "IP space" exists is because the DoD paid someone to come up with the 
>> idea? :)
> 
> True, but how is all of that relevant?

The first seems relevant because it was not possible for the US DoD to get 
space from ARIN.  It's not like they chose to go around ARIN.

The second seems relevant because ARIN is the successor, created by the IANA 
(Dr. Postel himself) specifically to take over the duties of address management 
in the geographic region where the DoD exists.

When someone comes up with an idea (or pays someone to come up with an idea), 
they tend to get to use that idea before others.  If you honestly cannot fathom 
why that is relevant, then I am not going to attempt to explain it to you.

Now that I've answered your question, mind if I ask why you are asking?  Or do 
you just prefer to troll?


>> If the US DoD wants more space, it has to ask ARIN, right?  Are you 
>> suggesting it should deal with a different organization depending on which 
>> direction the IP addresses flow?
> 
>> Supposed it was space ARIN assigned the DoD?
> 
> Policies like giving each RIR one of the final five /8s were carefully 
> created to give each RIR equal access to address space. Automatically giving 
> legacy space to the RIR for the region that the holder of the legacy space is 
> in is incompatible with that, and means that ARIN will get virtually all of 
> it.

Then perhaps you should work through the process to change that?


> To me, it seems both natural and fair that legacy space (especially /8s) is 
> returned to IANA and then redistributed over the RIRs.

It may seem that way to many.

Posting it to NANOG is not going to help you achieve what you deem to be fair & 
natural.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 18 feb 2011, at 12:59, Tore Anderson wrote:

> Hit your Page Down button a couple of times, it's included right there
> in the PDF.

I don't see anything that clears this up.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Tore Anderson]

* Iljitsch van Beijnum

>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilson-to-conrad-28jan08-en.pdf
>
>> 
> "Please find attached a summary spreadsheet (Excel format) providing
> the agreed distribution of administrative responsibility"

Hit your Page Down button a couple of times, it's included right there
in the PDF.

Regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 18 feb 2011, at 12:36, Tore Anderson wrote:

>> Each of those /8 is
>> "administered" by a RIR, but it's unclear (to me at least) whether
>> that means that RIR gets to give out that space in its region or not.

> The unused space in the ERX blocks were divided evenly between the RIRs
> a couple of years ago, see:

> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilson-to-conrad-28jan08-en.pdf

"Please find attached a summary spreadsheet (Excel format) providing the agreed 
distribution of administrative responsibility"

This still leaves the question of which RIR gets to give out which parts of the 
unused legacy space unanswered.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Tore Anderson]

* Iljitsch van Beijnum

> By the way, IANA only deals in /8s. However, a lot of people got
> legacy /16s or other non-/8 sizes, so some /8s that are marked
> "legacy" actually contain a lot of unused space. Each of those /8 is
> "administered" by a RIR, but it's unclear (to me at least) whether
> that means that RIR gets to give out that space in its region or not.

The unused space in the ERX blocks were divided evenly between the RIRs
a couple of years ago, see:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilson-to-conrad-28jan08-en.pdf
http://bgp.potaroo.net/stats/nro/various.html

I believe «administered by» simply means that the RIR is the one
providing reverse DNS services for the block in question.

Regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

>> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first 
>> place?

>> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.

> But last time I checked, the United States is in the ARIN region.  And ARIN 
> did not exist when the US DoD got its space.  (In fact, I do believe the 
> reason "IP space" exists is because the DoD paid someone to come up with the 
> idea? :)

True, but how is all of that relevant?

> If the US DoD wants more space, it has to ask ARIN, right?  Are you 
> suggesting it should deal with a different organization depending on which 
> direction the IP addresses flow?

> Supposed it was space ARIN assigned the DoD?

Policies like giving each RIR one of the final five /8s were carefully created 
to give each RIR equal access to address space. Automatically giving legacy 
space to the RIR for the region that the holder of the legacy space is in is 
incompatible with that, and means that ARIN will get virtually all of it.

To me, it seems both natural and fair that legacy space (especially /8s) is 
returned to IANA and then redistributed over the RIRs.

By the way, IANA only deals in /8s. However, a lot of people got legacy /16s or 
other non-/8 sizes, so some /8s that are marked "legacy" actually contain a lot 
of unused space. Each of those /8 is "administered" by a RIR, but it's unclear 
(to me at least) whether that means that RIR gets to give out that space in its 
region or not. And if not, what is supposed to happen with this space. It's a 
significant amount, about half the size of the class E space:

RIR  Administerd byDelegated   Free

afrinic 33.55 M   8.71 M24.85 M
apnic  100.66 M  77.95 M22.72 M
arin   671.09 M 592.04 M79.05 M
ripencc 67.11 M  63.01 M 4.10 M

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually 
>> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
>> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
>> community.
> 
> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first 
> place?
> 
> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.

Agreed.

But last time I checked, the United States is in the ARIN region.  And ARIN did 
not exist when the US DoD got its space.  (In fact, I do believe the reason "IP 
space" exists is because the DoD paid someone to come up with the idea? :)

If the US DoD wants more space, it has to ask ARIN, right?  Are you suggesting 
it should deal with a different organization depending on which direction the 
IP addresses flow?

Supposed it was space ARIN assigned the DoD?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:

> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually 
> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
> community.

How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first place?

ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 17 feb 2011, at 17:35, George Bonser wrote:

> Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
> Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.

You really think people will be communicating over the public internet using 
IPv4 in 2031?

It will take a long time before the first people are going to turn off IPv4, 
but once that starts there will be no stopping it and IPv4 will be gone very, 
very quickly.

(Of course there will be legacy stuff, just like some people are still running 
IPX or AppleTalk today. I'm talking about the public internet here.)

Today people are complaining how annoying it is to have to learn new things to 
be able to run IPv6, but that doesn't compare to how annoying it is to have to 
learn OLD things to keep running a protocol that is way past its sell by date. 
I still need to teach class A/B/C despite the fact that CIDR is old enough to 
drink in most countries because without knowing that you can't configure a 
Cisco router. That's annoying now. Think about how insane that will be in the 
2020s when the notion of requesting IPv4 addresses from an RIR is ancient 
history and young people don't know any better than having a /64 on every LAN 
that is big enough to connect all ethernet NICs ever made.

Speaking of class E: this address space could be usable for NAT64 translators. 
That way, only servers and routers need to be upgraded to work with class E, 
not CPEs or client OSes.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <00bc01cbcf19$8b3f13d0$a1bd3b70$@iname.com>, "Frank Bulk" writes:
> You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week.  I'd even pay you.
> 
> It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
> (printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sally
> visits for the weekend), etc).

Every device doesn't need to know the address.  The CPE device still uses
RFC 1918 internally.  This is for the external address.
 
> If you can come up with an online tool that downloads the correct firmware
> image, backs up the settings, upgrades the firmware, and restores the
> configuration, with 99% success, I'd consider buying it to the tune
> $10/upgraded device.
> 
> Frank
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Frank Bulk]

You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week.  I'd even pay you.

It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
(printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sally
visits for the weekend), etc).

If you can come up with an online tool that downloads the correct firmware
image, backs up the settings, upgrades the firmware, and restores the
configuration, with 99% success, I'd consider buying it to the tune
$10/upgraded device.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:56 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list; John Curran
Subject: Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...



I think grandma is quite capable of doing it.  She just needs to
be informed that it needs to be done.  Most people that are scared
of doing it themselves have someone that they can call on to do it
for them.  It also doesn't have to be 100%.



Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Steve Meuse]

Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):

> I think grandma is quite capable of doing it.  She just needs to
> be informed that it needs to be done.  

On my planet (Earth), this isn't likely ever happen. 


-Steve

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <20110218020622.ga10...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> 
> > > An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Jus
> t lo
> > > ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your on
> ly o
> > > ption. 
> > 
> > And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
> > support it.  It would take less time to fix the kernel than to argue
> > over whether to fix it.
> 
> The point is just because it's "running linux" doesn't make it any more likel
> y to get upgraded than joe six pack is going to update/patch his windows XP. 

Joe 6 pack does upgrade his XP box.  It companies that don't.  There too
worried about things breaking.

> -Steve
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Steve Meuse]

Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):

> Remember a lot of this problem is the direct result of vendors not
> acting soon enough and that includes CISCO.  Asking those vendors
> to do a bit of work to fixup the results of their bad decisions is
> not unreasonable.  They can't fix hardware limitations but they can
> definitely fix software limitations.

Vendors have finite resources. I'm not going to ask them to waste time fixing 
something that buys us a short amount of time vs. asking them to work on a 
feature that has immediate impact to my ability to generate revenue. 

Yah, I'm one of those dirty capitalists. 

What's Randy's quote? "I highly recommend my competitors do this..."



-Steve

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Steve Meuse]

Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):

> > An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just 
> > lo
> > ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only 
> > o
> > ption. 
> 
> And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
> support it.  It would take less time to fix the kernel than to argue
> over whether to fix it.

The point is just because it's "running linux" doesn't make it any more likely 
to get upgraded than joe six pack is going to update/patch his windows XP. 


-Steve

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
> 
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> >=20
> > In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen =
> DeLong write
> > s:
> >>>=20
> >>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> >>> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> >>> code.  This should be minimal.  A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
> >>> box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
> >>=20
> >> Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting. The difference between
> >> having them bring their CPE in to be reflashed or rolling a truck
> >> to do same vs. replacing the CPE will, in most cases, actually render
> >> replacing the CPE cheaper.
> >=20
> > It depends on the CPE device.  Lots of CPE devices can be re-flashed
> > in place.  It just requires the will to make the images available.
> >=20
> Who do you think is going to do this reflashing? If you think that =
> Grandma
> is going to download an image and reflash her linksys, you're at least
> slightly divorced from reality.

I think grandma is quite capable of doing it.  She just needs to
be informed that it needs to be done.  Most people that are scared
of doing it themselves have someone that they can call on to do it
for them.  It also doesn't have to be 100%.

> If you think she's going to do it and not have about a 10% brick rate
> (10% of devices going from router to brick) as a result, then, you're
> optimistic to say the least.

Reflashing with manufacture supplied images doesn't have a 10% brick
rate.

> >>> It can be deployed incrementally.
> >>>=20
> >> So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
> >> alternative for many providers.
> >=20
> > And further indecision is going to make this worse not better.
> >=20
> 
> 
> On this we agree...
> 
> Which is why we should decide to move to IPv6 and get on with it instead
> of continuing to pursue rat-holes like 240/4.

240/4 is actually an enabler for IPv6.  It allows the operator to
give the customer a stable IPv4 address which can be used for stable
IPv6 addresses via 6rd.

Different parts upgrade at different times and we need to de-couple
all those upgrades if we can.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> 
> But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to
forklift
> the
> devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the
kernel,
> either.
> 
> The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a
> counter
> productive waste of time. At best it's slightly short of break-even.
At
> worst,
> it's a huge $negative.
> 
> Owen
> 

I don't think anyone was proposing it as an alternative to v6.  It is
more along the lines of keeping the existing v4 net working as people
migrate over.  Freeing up WAN IPs can make them available for v6
migration purposes.  The ironic thing about v6 is that it will require
some additional v4 addresses during the migration period.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> 
> In message <5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong 
> write
> s:
>>> 
 Cisco is just one example.  The fact is it will likely not work in
 cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's,   I understand
 some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
 your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
 (cisco and msft)
 
>>> 
>>> I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the
>>> "middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to
>>> conserve IP space.
>>> 
>> Infeasible. NAT444 is primarily needed to avoid doing a CPE forklift
>> for nearly every subscriber. To deploy these addresses in that space would
>> require a CPE forklift for nearly every subscriber.
> 
> Firstly it is entirely possible to do this incrementally.  Secondly
> it doesn't require a fork lift upgrade.  A minimal upgrade is all
> that is required.  For modern Linux boxes just setting a DHCP option
> would be enough.  A two line fix in a config file.
> 
Whether you do it incrementally or not, you have to upgrade every affected
device eventually. You can roll out IPv6 incrementally, too.

Most CPE is _NOT_ within the description of "modern linux boxes" so
does not apply to the discussion of the middle 4 in NAT444.

It may not require an actual forklift upgrade, but, in the real world, it will
require ISP efforts that are equivalent to a forklift upgrade, so, if you're
going to that much trouble, it's cheaper (and in many cases easier)
to go ahead and forklift your way to IPv6.

Ideally in the next round of CPE, the need for NAT444 is a non-issue.
It should support at least DS-Lite or 6rd.

Anything earlier than the next round of equipment will need to be
at least re-flashed.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> 
> In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong 
> write
> s:
>>> 
>>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
>>> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
>>> code.  This should be minimal.  A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
>>> box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
>> 
>> Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting. The difference between
>> having them bring their CPE in to be reflashed or rolling a truck
>> to do same vs. replacing the CPE will, in most cases, actually render
>> replacing the CPE cheaper.
> 
> It depends on the CPE device.  Lots of CPE devices can be re-flashed
> in place.  It just requires the will to make the images available.
> 
Who do you think is going to do this reflashing? If you think that Grandma
is going to download an image and reflash her linksys, you're at least
slightly divorced from reality.

If you think she's going to do it and not have about a 10% brick rate
(10% of devices going from router to brick) as a result, then, you're
optimistic to say the least.

>>> It can be deployed incrementally.
>>> 
>> So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
>> alternative for many providers.
> 
> And further indecision is going to make this worse not better.
> 


On this we agree...

Which is why we should decide to move to IPv6 and get on with it instead
of continuing to pursue rat-holes like 240/4.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> > 
> > You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> > to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> > code.  This should be minimal.  A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
> > box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
> 
> Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting. The difference between
> having them bring their CPE in to be reflashed or rolling a truck
> to do same vs. replacing the CPE will, in most cases, actually render
> replacing the CPE cheaper.

It depends on the CPE device.  Lots of CPE devices can be re-flashed
in place.  It just requires the will to make the images available.

> > It can be deployed incrementally.
> > 
> So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
> alternative for many providers.

And further indecision is going to make this worse not better.

> Owen
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> 
> In message <20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
>> George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
>> 
>>> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
>>> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
>>> usable today could be surprising.
>> 
>> An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just lo
>> ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only o
>> ption. 
> 
> And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
> support it.  It would take less time to fix the kernel than to argue
> over whether to fix it.
> 
>> -Steve
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to forklift the
devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the kernel, either.

The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a counter
productive waste of time. At best it's slightly short of break-even. At worst,
it's a huge $negative.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <20110217203922.gb3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> 
> > Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it?   In many cases
> > it is a minimal change.  I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
> 
> They are in the business of selling new gear, not enabling features on EOL eq
> uipment :)
> 
> -Steve

Sometime the good will generated is worth the minor expense.

Remember a lot of this problem is the direct result of vendors not
acting soon enough and that includes CISCO.  Asking those vendors
to do a bit of work to fixup the results of their bad decisions is
not unreasonable.  They can't fix hardware limitations but they can
definitely fix software limitations.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
> 
> > Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
> > there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
> > usable today could be surprising.
> 
> An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just lo
> ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only o
> ption. 

And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
support it.  It would take less time to fix the kernel than to argue
over whether to fix it.

> -Steve
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> > 
> >> Cisco is just one example.  The fact is it will likely not work in
> >> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's,   I understand
> >> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
> >> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
> >> (cisco and msft)
> >> 
> > 
> > I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the
> > "middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to
> > conserve IP space.
> > 
> Infeasible. NAT444 is primarily needed to avoid doing a CPE forklift
> for nearly every subscriber. To deploy these addresses in that space would
> require a CPE forklift for nearly every subscriber.

Firstly it is entirely possible to do this incrementally.  Secondly
it doesn't require a fork lift upgrade.  A minimal upgrade is all
that is required.  For modern Linux boxes just setting a DHCP option
would be enough.  A two line fix in a config file.

> >> @George
> >> 
> >> Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
> >> on this list.  Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
> >> Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.
> > 
> > The usage I have in mind would be transparent to the end stations and,
> > frankly, someone who produces provider gear and CPE that can take
> > advantage of that space is going to have a great selling point.  There
> > is some gold under there for someone.  240/4 is a great big "dig here"
> > sign if they want some of it.
> > 
> > 
> Maybe, but, CPE is rarely a unified solution, even within the same carrier.
> 
> Owen
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> code.  This should be minimal.  A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
> box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
> 
Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting. The difference between
having them bring their CPE in to be reflashed or rolling a truck
to do same vs. replacing the CPE will, in most cases, actually render
replacing the CPE cheaper.

> It can be deployed incrementally.
> 
So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
alternative for many providers.


Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Steve Meuse]

Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):

> Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it?   In many cases
> it is a minimal change.  I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600

They are in the business of selling new gear, not enabling features on EOL 
equipment :)

-Steve

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Steve Meuse]

George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):

> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
> usable today could be surprising.

An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just look 
at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only 
option. 

-Steve

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <32ecc9cd-d927-4407-914c-751316c59...@istaff.org>, John Curran write
s:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> 
> >> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> >> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> > 
> > Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> > packet like this.
> 
> So, it won't work for you.  Is there any reason that it shouldn't 
> be defined as unicast or private use (with warnings) rather than 
> "Future Use", so that those who might have a use for it can do so?
> 
> /John

Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it?   In many cases
it is a minimal change.  I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
but it can't hurt to ask the vendors if it is technically possible.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message , Came
ron Byrne writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> >> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us =
> a few more months, but:
> >>
> >> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of w=
> hich about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed addresses =
> can be reused by others as long as the stuff both users connect to doesn't =
> overlap.
> >
> > Again, I note that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address
> > space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and then
> > considering that US DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the communi=
> ty
> > (noted here:  />),
> > I believe they've shown significant consideration to the Internet communi=
> ty.
> > The fact that any particular prefix today isn't in your particular routin=
> g
> > table does not imply that global uniqueness isn't desired.
> >
> > Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
> > service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
> > made usable (ala http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 or
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00, etc.) on a priority
> > basis and work with the operating system and vendor community actually
> > to make this happen? =A0There's a chance that it could be made usable wit=
> h
> > sufficient focus to make that happen, but it is assured not to be usable
> > if eternally delayed because it is "too hard" to accomplish.
> >
> 
> +1
> 
> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
> you might make some progress.
> 
> As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
> private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
> a strategy.  Seeing 240/4 actually work would be nice, but i have
> already concluded it does not fit my exhaustion timeline given how
> many edge devices will never support it.
> 
> If i have to fork lift, it should be for ipv6.

You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
code.  This should be minimal.  A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
box to enable (default) / disable setting it.

It can be deployed incrementally.

It enables IPv6 to be deployed over intermediate hardware that
doesn't support IPv4.  You still need lots of IPv4 to do that. It
doesn't however have to be globally unique and it shouldn't be RFC
1918.  Leave RFC 1918 for customers.

You add IPv6 support to CPE devices where you can.

It doesn't require the world to upgrade.

It gives a well defined range that you don't use with 6to4.

We also don't need all of class E.  The first half would be more
than enough for even the biggest ISP.

It's big enough to give customers stable IPv6 addresses via 6rd.

Mark

> Cameron
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 
> > /John
> >
> > (my views alone; 100% recycled electrons used in this message)
> >
> >
> >
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jack Bates  wrote:
>
>
> On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

 IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
>>>
>>> ??
>>> Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the
>>> process?
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the beginning.
>>
>
> Given the heavy losses and chaotic nature of the event, wasn't mass fear and
> confusion to be expected?
>
>
> Jack
>

At Normandy or on 2/3/11?

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates]

On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:


IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.


??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?

Owen




Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the beginning.



Given the heavy losses and chaotic nature of the event, wasn't mass fear 
and confusion to be expected?



Jack

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>> IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
>
> ??
> Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
>
> Owen
>
>

Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the beginning.

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>> Cisco is just one example.  The fact is it will likely not work in
>> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's,   I understand
>> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
>> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
>> (cisco and msft)
>> 
> 
> I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the
> "middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to
> conserve IP space.
> 
Infeasible. NAT444 is primarily needed to avoid doing a CPE forklift
for nearly every subscriber. To deploy these addresses in that space would
require a CPE forklift for nearly every subscriber.

>> @George
>> 
>> Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
>> on this list.  Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
>> Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.
> 
> The usage I have in mind would be transparent to the end stations and,
> frankly, someone who produces provider gear and CPE that can take
> advantage of that space is going to have a great selling point.  There
> is some gold under there for someone.  240/4 is a great big "dig here"
> sign if they want some of it.
> 
> 
Maybe, but, CPE is rarely a unified solution, even within the same carrier.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.

??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, John Curran wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> 
>> Owen DeLong  writes:
>>> ...
>>> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
>>> is appropriate to the community, but,
>> 
>> You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
>> Technical Command), 10/8 (formerly ARPAnet), and 7/8 (DNIC)?
>> 
>> As the biggest returner of IPv4 space by a fair margin,
>> notwithstanding their current holdings I think the DoD is quite
>> justified in saying "I gave at the office" and hanging up.
> 
As they are also the biggest consumer of IPv4 space by a fair margin,
that statement rings a bit hollow.

> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually 
> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
> community.
> 
This statement, on the other hand, is a good thing.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:35 AM, George Bonser wrote:

>> 
>> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to
>> Windows 8 and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act
>> together and deploy
>> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
>> your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.
> 
> Or tell her to run "Windows Update" and get the latest update for her
> existing OS which has the patch.
> 
Because that certainly solved the DNS resolver over IPv6 problems
for all the WinXP users out there.

> 
>> And then she has to do something *else* 9 months later when you need
> to
>> deploy IPv6 *anyhow*.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on how it is deployed.  That "something
> else" might be as simple as "reboot the computer".
> 
Unlikely unless she has IPv6 compliant CPE.

>> 
>> I encourage my competitors to design their business plans that way. :)
> 
> Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
> Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.
> 
> 
I'd much rather see the resources required go into improving IPv6 support and
deployment.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[David Israel]

On 2/17/2011 1:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.



As in, "large, dedicated, and nigh unstoppable, but fraught with peril 
and with a lot of mess and destruction to get through before it is 
done," or as in "mainly opposed by aging crazy Nazis who should have 
seen it coming but kept their attention in the wrong place?"

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible.  I escalated,
> still no-go, it was a "deep" problem.  And they pointed to the IETF
> saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
> or whatever to fix it.

Ok, so that implies that it is burned into hardware and as it is
ASIC-based hardware and not FPGA, they can't reprogram the hardware with
a code update (one of the advantages of FPGA-based hardware).

 
> Cisco is just one example.  The fact is it will likely not work in
> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's,   I understand
> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
> (cisco and msft)
> 

I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the
"middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to
conserve IP space.

> @George
> 
> Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
> on this list.  Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
> Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.

The usage I have in mind would be transparent to the end stations and,
frankly, someone who produces provider gear and CPE that can take
advantage of that space is going to have a great selling point.  There
is some gold under there for someone.  240/4 is a great big "dig here"
sign if they want some of it.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Cameron Byrne  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
>>> packet like this.
>>>
>>> Cameron
>>
>> Considering how small of a change it is, simply removing that net from
>> the "black list", they could do it at any time with a code update to any
>> version of IOS, provided that black list isn't burned into hardware.
>>
>
> I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible.  I escalated,
> still no-go, it was a "deep" problem.  And they pointed to the IETF
> saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
> or whatever to fix it.
>
> This is where i turned to the IPv6-only reality of the future
> near-term internet.  I suggest you do the same.
>
> Cisco is just one example.  The fact is it will likely not work in
> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's,   I understand
> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
> (cisco and msft)
>
> Let me remind you, i believe opening 240/4 for private unicast was a
> good ideas years ago.  It is still not a bad idea, what's the harm?
> But ... the answer you will hear is that IPv6 has momentum, go with
> the flow.
>
> Using 240/4 is much better than providing a public allocation to
> private networks.  It properly makes folks consider the reality of
> staying with broken ipv4 or making the much better long term
> investment in IPv6.
>
> @George
>
> Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
> on this list.  Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
> Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.
>
> Cameron
> =
> http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
> =
>
>

IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Cameron Byrne]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser  wrote:
>> >
>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>> >
>>
>> Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
>> packet like this.
>>
>> Cameron
>
> Considering how small of a change it is, simply removing that net from
> the "black list", they could do it at any time with a code update to any
> version of IOS, provided that black list isn't burned into hardware.
>

I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible.  I escalated,
still no-go, it was a "deep" problem.  And they pointed to the IETF
saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
or whatever to fix it.

This is where i turned to the IPv6-only reality of the future
near-term internet.  I suggest you do the same.

Cisco is just one example.  The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's,   I understand
some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
(cisco and msft)

Let me remind you, i believe opening 240/4 for private unicast was a
good ideas years ago.  It is still not a bad idea, what's the harm?
But ... the answer you will hear is that IPv6 has momentum, go with
the flow.

Using 240/4 is much better than providing a public allocation to
private networks.  It properly makes folks consider the reality of
staying with broken ipv4 or making the much better long term
investment in IPv6.

@George

Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
on this list.  Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.

Cameron
=
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
=

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> >
> 
> I am 100% pro making Class E defined as private unicast space.
> 
> My only point is that people need to be realistic about the near term
> benefit.  Yes, some linux may work.  But, Microsoft and Cisco don't
> work today.  Let's move it to not-reserved, but don't bet the farm on
> 240/4 solving any of your problems or in any way changing the need to
> for IPv6 migration.  This is where the slipperly slope and expectation
> settings start.
> 
> Cameron

Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
usable today could be surprising.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[John Curran]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> Owen DeLong  writes:
>> ...
>> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
>> is appropriate to the community, but,
> 
> You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
> Technical Command), 10/8 (formerly ARPAnet), and 7/8 (DNIC)?
> 
> As the biggest returner of IPv4 space by a fair margin,
> notwithstanding their current holdings I think the DoD is quite
> justified in saying "I gave at the office" and hanging up.

Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually 
agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
community.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Cameron Byrne]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>>> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>>> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>>
>> Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
>> packet like this.
>
> So, it won't work for you.  Is there any reason that it shouldn't
> be defined as unicast or private use (with warnings) rather than
> "Future Use", so that those who might have a use for it can do so?
>

I am 100% pro making Class E defined as private unicast space.

My only point is that people need to be realistic about the near term
benefit.  Yes, some linux may work.  But, Microsoft and Cisco don't
work today.  Let's move it to not-reserved, but don't bet the farm on
240/4 solving any of your problems or in any way changing the need to
for IPv6 migration.  This is where the slipperly slope and expectation
settings start.

Cameron

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> >
> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
> 
> Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> packet like this.
> 
> Cameron

Considering how small of a change it is, simply removing that net from
the "black list", they could do it at any time with a code update to any
version of IOS, provided that black list isn't burned into hardware.

George

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[John Curran]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

>> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> 
> Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> packet like this.

So, it won't work for you.  Is there any reason that it shouldn't 
be defined as unicast or private use (with warnings) rather than 
"Future Use", so that those who might have a use for it can do so?

/John

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Cameron Byrne]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, George Bonser  wrote:
>> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
>> you might make some progress.
>>
>> As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
>> private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
>> a strategy.  Seeing 240/4 actually work would be nice, but i have
>> already concluded it does not fit my exhaustion timeline given how
>> many edge devices will never support it.
>>
>> If i have to fork lift, it should be for ipv6.
>
> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>

Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.

Cameron

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Owen DeLong  writes:

> The DoD does not seem particularly anxious to announce or explain
> their usage of those blocks to the rest of the community.
>
> They have much larger quantities of significantly more sophisticated
> armaments than ARIN.
>
> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
> is appropriate to the community, but,

You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
Technical Command), 10/8 (formerly ARPAnet), and 7/8 (DNIC)?

As the biggest returner of IPv4 space by a fair margin,
notwithstanding their current holdings I think the DoD is quite
justified in saying "I gave at the office" and hanging up.

-r

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
> you might make some progress.
> 
> As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
> private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
> a strategy.  Seeing 240/4 actually work would be nice, but i have
> already concluded it does not fit my exhaustion timeline given how
> many edge devices will never support it.
> 
> If i have to fork lift, it should be for ipv6.

240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Mark Andrews  writes:

> It's not usable as general purpose unicast.  Both those drafts
> attempt to do that.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00 does not.
Recommend you re-read.

> It would be possible to use it as restricted purpose unicast, i.e.
> to connect from a cpe border router to a 6rd and/or LSN with the
> cpe border router signaling that it support the use of class E
> addresses when it requests a address from upstream.
>
> The upsteam only returns a class E address when it is sure that the
> network between the LSN/6rd supports class E traffic.

The contemporary discussions we had on this subject centered around
management infrastructure for MSOs, not 6rd (which was still a twinkle
in the Bad Idea Fairy's eye at the time).  Not speaking for Paul here,
but it was not our intention to box in possible use of this space,
only to mark it as sufficiently toxic that end users and normal
enterprises would stay away.  Would be great for 6rd if that's what
folks wanted to use it for and could get the CPE vendors to cooperate.

-r

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Cameron Byrne]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a 
>> few more months, but:
>>
>> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which 
>> about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed addresses can be 
>> reused by others as long as the stuff both users connect to doesn't overlap.
>
> Again, I note that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address
> space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and then
> considering that US DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community
> (noted here: ),
> I believe they've shown significant consideration to the Internet community.
> The fact that any particular prefix today isn't in your particular routing
> table does not imply that global uniqueness isn't desired.
>
> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
> made usable (ala http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 or
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00, etc.) on a priority
> basis and work with the operating system and vendor community actually
> to make this happen?  There's a chance that it could be made usable with
> sufficient focus to make that happen, but it is assured not to be usable
> if eternally delayed because it is "too hard" to accomplish.
>

+1

If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
you might make some progress.

As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
a strategy.  Seeing 240/4 actually work would be nice, but i have
already concluded it does not fit my exhaustion timeline given how
many edge devices will never support it.

If i have to fork lift, it should be for ipv6.

Cameron
===
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
===

> /John
>
> (my views alone; 100% recycled electrons used in this message)
>
>
>

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[John Curran]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel 
>> endpoints.
>> For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
> 
> I think several people's point is that it may be useful for the CGN/LSN 
> numbering and other special case scenarios where a CPE might be compliant and 
> the windows box would be ignorant.

Jack - 
 
 There's numerous applications, including expanding internal applications
 such as virtualized servers for which the address space might be useful,
 if it was actually defined as usable as unicast.  

 Apparently, it is also the case that the operator community wouldn't 
 recognize the usage restrictions that might apply due to the recent 
 reclassification, and would badly hurt themselves by making use of the
 space inappropriately.  Thus, it is deemed better that nobody have use 
 of the 1/16 of the IPv4 space (even if your internal use is perfectly 
 compatible) because some who won't understand might get hurt...  

;-)
/John


 

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> 
> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to
> Windows 8 and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act
> together and deploy
> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
> your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.

Or tell her to run "Windows Update" and get the latest update for her
existing OS which has the patch.

 
> And then she has to do something *else* 9 months later when you need
to
> deploy IPv6 *anyhow*.

Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on how it is deployed.  That "something
else" might be as simple as "reboot the computer".

> 
> I encourage my competitors to design their business plans that way. :)

Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates]

On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:

It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel endpoints.
For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.


I think several people's point is that it may be useful for the CGN/LSN 
numbering and other special case scenarios where a CPE might be 
compliant and the windows box would be ignorant.



Jack

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Steven Bellovin]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:44 04AM, John Curran wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
>> 
>>> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
>>> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
>>> made usable
>> 
>> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to Windows 8
>> and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act together and deploy
>> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
>> your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.
> 
> Not, what I'm saying is that we've been considering this matter for more than 
> 10 years, and as old as her machine is, it would have been patched once since
> then if we had bothered to note that "Reserved for Future Use" should be 
> treated
> as unicast space.  
> 
> The same argument applies now: unless there is a reason to save 240/8, it 
> should
> at least be redefined to be usable in some manner so that we don't repeat the 
> same argument 5 years from now.
> 
John, my usual rule of thumb for something like this is 8-10 years -- 3-5 years
for the next major version of Windows, plus (at least) 5 for enough old machines
to die off.  There are just too many machines that don't listen to Windows 
Upgrade;
you can't roll out a major change that way.  We won't even talk about things 
like
home NATs and cable/DSL/fiber modems, which tend to be longer-lived.

If we'd started this 10 years ago, as you suggest in a later note, maybe it 
would
be present in Windows 7, possibly even Vista.  So we'd be set -- Windows XP is
gone by now, right?  Oh, yeah, it isn't...  And as Valdis points out, it just
doesn't buy us that much time.

It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel endpoints.
For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[John Curran]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
> 
>> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
>> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
>> made usable
> 
> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to Windows 8
> and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act together and deploy
> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
> your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.

Not, what I'm saying is that we've been considering this matter for more than 
10 years, and as old as her machine is, it would have been patched once since
then if we had bothered to note that "Reserved for Future Use" should be treated
as unicast space.  

The same argument applies now: unless there is a reason to save 240/8, it should
at least be redefined to be usable in some manner so that we don't repeat the 
same argument 5 years from now.

/John

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:

> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
> made usable

In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to Windows 8
and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act together and deploy
IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.

And then she has to do something *else* 9 months later when you need to
deploy IPv6 *anyhow*.

I encourage my competitors to design their business plans that way. :)


pgpckK4CUIHuj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
>> addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
>> either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
>> networks to function, or we assign addresses that could otherwise be
>> used on the big-I Internet.
> 
> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a few 
> more months, but:
> 
> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which 
> about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed addresses can be 
> reused by others as long as the stuff both users connect to doesn't overlap.

The DoD does not seem particularly anxious to announce or explain their usage 
of those blocks
to the rest of the community.

They have much larger quantities of significantly more sophisticated armaments 
than ARIN.

I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever is 
appropriate to the community, but,
as you say, there is little upside to them doing so anyway. Certainly not 
enough to make the risks
of attempting to obtain it through any means other than voluntary return 
feasible or even worthy
of consideration.

Owen

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews]

In message <54cc2b0d-eae0-4b79-af19-20bbd233a...@istaff.org>, John Curran 
writes:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> > Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give =
> us a few more months, but:
> >=20
> > Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of =
> which about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed =
> addresses can be reused by others as long as the stuff both users =
> connect to doesn't overlap.
> 
> Again, I note that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address=20=
> 
> space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and =
> then
> considering that US DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the =
> community=20
> (noted here: =
> ),=20
> I believe they've shown significant consideration to the Internet =
> community.
> The fact that any particular prefix today isn't in your particular =
> routing=20
> table does not imply that global uniqueness isn't desired.
> 
> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps =
> the
> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be=20=
> 
> made usable (ala http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 or=20=
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00, etc.) on a priority=20=
> 
> basis and work with the operating system and vendor community actually
> to make this happen?  There's a chance that it could be made usable with=20=
> 
> sufficient focus to make that happen, but it is assured not to be usable
> if eternally delayed because it is "too hard" to accomplish.
> 
> /John
> 
> (my views alone; 100% recycled electrons used in this message)

It's not usable as general purpose unicast.  Both those drafts
attempt to do that.

It would be possible to use it as restricted purpose unicast, i.e.
to connect from a cpe border router to a 6rd and/or LSN with the
cpe border router signaling that it support the use of class E
addresses when it requests a address from upstream.

The upsteam only returns a class E address when it is sure that the
network between the LSN/6rd supports class E traffic.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[John Curran]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a few 
> more months, but:
> 
> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which 
> about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed addresses can be 
> reused by others as long as the stuff both users connect to doesn't overlap.

Again, I note that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address 
space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and then
considering that US DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community 
(noted here: ), 
I believe they've shown significant consideration to the Internet community.
The fact that any particular prefix today isn't in your particular routing 
table does not imply that global uniqueness isn't desired.

Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be 
made usable (ala http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 or 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00, etc.) on a priority 
basis and work with the operating system and vendor community actually
to make this happen?  There's a chance that it could be made usable with 
sufficient focus to make that happen, but it is assured not to be usable
if eternally delayed because it is "too hard" to accomplish.

/John

(my views alone; 100% recycled electrons used in this message)

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:

> We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
> addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
> either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
> networks to function, or we assign addresses that could otherwise be
> used on the big-I Internet.

Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a few 
more months, but:

Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which 
about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed addresses can be 
reused by others as long as the stuff both users connect to doesn't overlap.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates]

Luckily, they do. Only the smart DSLAMs had issues, and they even 
blocked IP protocol 41. haha


On 2/13/2011 4:44 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:

Fine approach as long as the DSLAMs and CPE allow ether type 0x86DD to pass.

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Frank Bulk]

Fine approach as long as the DSLAMs and CPE allow ether type 0x86DD to pass.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Ricky Beam
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

On 2/11/2011 3:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> In bridge mode, any modem will do.  It's when the modem is also the
> router (which is most cases today) that it will need attention to
> support IPv6. (in bridge mode, you'll have to fix whatever it's plugged
> into, but that's the customer's problem... off to Best Buy for an IPv6
> capable D-Link.)

I just finished discussing with the one telco in my network that 
deployed PPPoE. All customers will bring their modem into the office, 
where the front desk ladies will flash the config to bridge mode. It was 
that or replace thousands of CPE that never will support IPv6 in routed 
mode.

Have a nice day.



Jack

Re: [v6z] Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jim Gettys]

On 02/12/2011 02:32 PM, Scott Howard wrote:

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Lamar Owen  wrote:


While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them,
and would find it interesting if anyone has.



I used a WRT54G running DD-WRT for some time with a HE IPv6 tunnel (now
replaced with a Cisco 877, but not due to any failing of the Linksys/DD-WRT)

IPv6 support is actually broken in the latest version of DD-WRT, and it's
been that way for some time (measured in years), however with some hacking
you can get it to work.  It's not at all user friendly, and definitely not
consumer ready, but once it's working it's pretty much rock solid.

All up I'd say I probably spent less time getting IPv6 working on DD-WRT
than on my Cisco 877W (Hint: IOS 12.x doesn't support IPv6 on the bridge
interface, the IOS 15.x Advanced Security feature set doesn't support IPv6
at all, and the flash requirements listed for 15.1 Advanced IP are wrong. Go
Cisco!)

Keep in mind that not all WRT54G's support DD-WRT.  Linksys moved from Linux
to Vxworks but kept the model number the same (the version did change).  The
WRT54GL along with various other devices do support it - details are on the
DD-WRT website.



OpenWRT will run IPv6 fine; Comcast posted patches some months back to 
enable some 6rd configuration mods needed for Comcast's IPv6 trial. 
From the  Comcast beta forum, it's clear that some people have 
succeeded at merging those 6rd patches into OpenWRT, though there may be 
some rough edges.


I haven't had time to take them for a spin.
- Jim

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Philip Dorr]

That is on WiFi, NOT cellular.

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Laurent GUERBY  wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 09:37 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> Mikael and I both have 3G networks with demonstrated IPv6
>> capabilities, perhaps people should request Google drive Android IPv6
>> support.  Please point your IPv6 interest here
>> http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3389 and comment and
>> try and drive the IPv6 support for mobile into Android.
>
> Looks like cyanogenmod supports ipv6:
>
> http://forum.cyanogenmod.com/topic/1286-ipv6-on-cm-508-ds/
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Laurent GUERBY]

On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 09:37 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Mikael and I both have 3G networks with demonstrated IPv6
> capabilities, perhaps people should request Google drive Android IPv6
> support.  Please point your IPv6 interest here
> http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3389 and comment and
> try and drive the IPv6 support for mobile into Android.

Looks like cyanogenmod supports ipv6:

http://forum.cyanogenmod.com/topic/1286-ipv6-on-cm-508-ds/

Laurent

Re: [v6z] Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Scott Howard]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Lamar Owen  wrote:

> While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them,
> and would find it interesting if anyone has.
>

I used a WRT54G running DD-WRT for some time with a HE IPv6 tunnel (now
replaced with a Cisco 877, but not due to any failing of the Linksys/DD-WRT)

IPv6 support is actually broken in the latest version of DD-WRT, and it's
been that way for some time (measured in years), however with some hacking
you can get it to work.  It's not at all user friendly, and definitely not
consumer ready, but once it's working it's pretty much rock solid.

All up I'd say I probably spent less time getting IPv6 working on DD-WRT
than on my Cisco 877W (Hint: IOS 12.x doesn't support IPv6 on the bridge
interface, the IOS 15.x Advanced Security feature set doesn't support IPv6
at all, and the flash requirements listed for 15.1 Advanced IP are wrong. Go
Cisco!)

Keep in mind that not all WRT54G's support DD-WRT.  Linksys moved from Linux
to Vxworks but kept the model number the same (the version did change).  The
WRT54GL along with various other devices do support it - details are on the
DD-WRT website.

  Scott.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Doug Barton]

On 02/12/2011 09:26 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:

While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them, and 
would find it interesting if anyone has.


http://www.tunnelbroker.net/forums/index.php?topic=106.0



--

Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Cameron Byrne]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Thomas Habets wrote:
>
>> Really.
>
> Exactly. Can we PLEASE kill the myth that Android and iPhone has IPv6
> support for mobile side. PLEASE. None do, and there are no publically
> available roadmaps when this might happen on either OSes.
>
> There are exactly two types of devices (afaik) that support IPv6 for mobile,
> and that's Nokia phones using Symbian and Maemo (afaik only N900).
>
> No other vendor has any IPv6 mobile side support, and even though Microsoft
> did the right thing for IPv6 on Vista and Win7, they've dropped the ball on
> Windows Phone 7 and have no IPv6 support there. I was very disappointed when
> I learnt that fact. I've been told it's to some extent a Qualcomm baseband
> issue. There are also no USB dongles with IPv6 support that I am aware of.
>

I completely agree with this note from Mikael, but as Joel pointed out
and I have confirmed before, Verizon Wireless does have dual-stack USB
sticks for LTE.   But it is only working on their itty bitty LTE
network ... LTE is still developing a market and the economies of
scale are not there, so things like this happen where small supply
exceeds the growing demand.  I believe the chipset cost for LTE are
around $100 while they are $15 for HSPA ... (foggy memory)

But, LTE is not the issue here.  GSM/UMTS/HSPA+ all support IPv6 just
as well as LTE.  The issue is mobile OSs don't support IPv6 aside from
Nokia.

Mikael and I both have 3G networks with demonstrated IPv6
capabilities, perhaps people should request Google drive Android IPv6
support.  Please point your IPv6 interest here
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3389 and comment and
try and drive the IPv6 support for mobile into Android.

Cameron

> This means that the incentive for mobile operators to support IPv6 is very
> close to zero even though a lot of them could do it fairly easily.
>
> I have native IPv6 in my Nokia N900, it works just fine within "my" own
> network, ie without roaming.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swm...@swm.pp.se
>
>

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Lamar Owen]

On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:33:37 pm valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> So riddle me this - what CPE stuff were they giving out in 2009 that was
> already v6-able? (and actually *tested* as being v6-able, rather than "It's
> supposed to work but since we don't do v6 on the live net, nobody's ever
> actually *tried* it...")

Well, while no one that I know 'gave out' Linksys WRT54G's capable of running 
OpenWRT or similar (Sveasoft firmware, too), a WRT54G of the right (read: old 
enough) version can run the IPv6 modules (ipkg's) for OpenWRT, and there was at 
least one version of the Sveasoft WRT firmware that could do IPv6.

While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them, and 
would find it interesting if anyone has.

Owen, in particular, should know, because one of the HOWTO's I found was posted 
on an HE forum.back in April of 2009.

I found a few other HOWTO's, some in 2006, some in 2005, detailing IPv6 setup 
for the WRT54G running either Sveasoft or OpenWRT (one was for DD-WRT, and 
another for Tomato).

Yeah, only the tech-savvy customers will be able to use this, unless the ISP 
sets up a 'Golden' CPE firmware image and recycles all those WRT54G's into 
useful things and then, of course, the DSL/Cable gateway needs to be in 
bridge mode.

I'm sure there are other Linux-based firmwares for other CPE that can run Linux 
and IPv6; they just need enough flash and RAM to do it.  vxWorks boxen, not so 
sure.  And then there's all the Zoom stuff out there.

My own Netgear DG834G can, too, with some interesting tinkering involved.

So the firmware is out there to do this, it just requires flashing and 
configuring.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Thomas Habets wrote:


Really.


Exactly. Can we PLEASE kill the myth that Android and iPhone has IPv6 
support for mobile side. PLEASE. None do, and there are no publically 
available roadmaps when this might happen on either OSes.


There are exactly two types of devices (afaik) that support IPv6 for 
mobile, and that's Nokia phones using Symbian and Maemo (afaik only N900).


No other vendor has any IPv6 mobile side support, and even though 
Microsoft did the right thing for IPv6 on Vista and Win7, they've dropped 
the ball on Windows Phone 7 and have no IPv6 support there. I was very 
disappointed when I learnt that fact. I've been told it's to some extent a 
Qualcomm baseband issue. There are also no USB dongles with IPv6 support 
that I am aware of.


This means that the incentive for mobile operators to support IPv6 is very 
close to zero even though a lot of them could do it fairly easily.


I have native IPv6 in my Nokia N900, it works just fine within "my" own 
network, ie without roaming.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates]

On 2/12/2011 10:34 AM, Andre Keller wrote:

My Milestone (android 2.1) uses IPv6 when connecting to a WLAN with
stateless auto configuration enabled...


Am 12.02.2011 16:49, schrieb Thomas Habets:



*on the  mobile side*.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Andre Keller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

My Milestone (android 2.1) uses IPv6 when connecting to a WLAN with
stateless auto configuration enabled... (well at least basic
connectivity when browsing web pages... Not sure about the rest...)



Am 12.02.2011 16:49, schrieb Thomas Habets:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 16:02, Ricky Beam  wrote:
>> i.e. cellphones... the two largest groups there (iPhone and Android)
>> support IPv6 already.
> 
> No they don't. Only Symbian and Maemo (MeeGo?) supports IPv6 *on the
> mobile side*.
> 
> Not android, not iphone.
> 
> Unless this has changed in the last month, it's still the case.
> 
> Neither of the two have any public plans to support IPv6 either.
> 
> Really.
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1WtpcACgkQHTGv6cAMp2iYGQCgmY7LZLOCyaj0SloiyObyBHx+
Ts8AnAvnyRurC9a3eZgwV0BRJ2oiAvJe
=+mZr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Thomas Habets]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 16:02, Ricky Beam  wrote:
> i.e. cellphones... the two largest groups there (iPhone and Android)
> support IPv6 already.

No they don't. Only Symbian and Maemo (MeeGo?) supports IPv6 *on the
mobile side*.

Not android, not iphone.

Unless this has changed in the last month, it's still the case.

Neither of the two have any public plans to support IPv6 either.

Really.

-- 
typedef struct me_s {
 char name[]      = { "Thomas Habets" };
 char email[]     = { "tho...@habets.pp.se" };
 char kernel[]    = { "Linux" };
 char *pgpKey[]   = { "http://www.habets.pp.se/pubkey.txt"; };
 char pgp[] = { "A8A3 D1DD 4AE0 8467 7FDE  0945 286A E90A AD48 E854" };
 char coolcmd[]   = { "echo '. ./_&. ./_'>_;. ./_" };
} me_t;

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 2/11/11 6:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
>>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is
>>> already underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the
>>> native protocol and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to
>>> operate.
>>>
>>
>> I'm writing an article where I want to say that but I can't find an
>> article I can reference to back it up.
> 
> We're an LTE operator and this is the first time I've heard about this.
> LTE supports IPv4 and IPv6 and as far as I can discern, that is a
> requirement, and there is no "hackery" to get IPv4 running.

3gpp release 8 and later does not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
v6 only contexts are certainly supported however and we know for a fact
that there are certain entities that will use that in short order.

> We have yet to see any LTE terminals (USB dongels so far) that support
> IPv6. There are a lot of other kinks to work out first, going IPv6 only
> here is definitely not the place. Remember, a lot of people buying this
> service is taking the USB dongle and attaching it to their corporate XP
> laptop.

The current verizon lte sticks (sourced lg and pantech) do in fact
provide v6 connectivity as do some of the embedded mini pci-e cards.

I note with some entertainment for the future of mobile walled gardens
the last bullet point on this page everytime I see it:

https://www.lte.vzw.com/About4GLTE/VerizonWireless4GLTENetwork/tabid/6003/Default.aspx

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[John Curran]

On Feb 11, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:

> I don't want to accidentally encourage an urban legend or rumor.  (For
> example, I can't find verification to the rumor that ARIN rejected a
> request from LTE providers for IPv4 space and instead told them to go
> straight to IPv6.

Not quite correct - A while back we did explain the policies regarding 
slow-start and the potential for operators to run into IPv4 depletion 
while still early in capital depreciation for their nextgen network. 

That's not rejection, just fair warning... :-)

/John

John Curran 
President and CEO
ARIN

PSTN address expansion (was: Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jack Bates" 

> On 2/11/2011 9:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > If you want to compare masses, IPv4 = 7 liters of water.
> > IPv6 = EARTH, including all rocks, trees, oceans, lakes, puddles,
> > etc.
> 
> Was trying to explain things to a telco VP today. Finally settled on,
> 
> "The Internet is out of 10 digit phone numbers. We're upgrading to 40
> digit phone numbers. Unfortunately, the two can't dial each other
> directly."

http://www.lincmad.com/future.html

Cheers,
-- jra

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates]

On 2/11/2011 9:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

If you want to compare masses, IPv4 = 7 liters of water.
IPv6 = EARTH, including all rocks, trees, oceans, lakes, puddles,
etc.


Was trying to explain things to a telco VP today. Finally settled on,

"The Internet is out of 10 digit phone numbers. We're upgrading to 40 
digit phone numbers. Unfortunately, the two can't dial each other directly."


After 51+ years in the telco industry, I think he gets that problem.


Jack

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Karl Auer wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 11:56 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think that it will not be long
>> before the internet is an IPv6 ocean with islands of IPv4
> 
> My company made up some t-shirts for a conference last year. We
> brainstormed the texts. I ended up with a sort of haiku:
> 
>out of the puddle
>   into the ocean
>  IPv6
> 
> Sadly I realised too late that it should have had a footnote: "not to
> scale" :-)

True.

If you want to compare masses, IPv4 = 7 liters of water.
IPv6 = EARTH, including all rocks, trees, oceans, lakes, puddles,
etc.

Put another way, if subnets (IPv4 /24s, IPv6 /64s) were
Almond M&Ms, IPv4 would cover approximately 70 yards
of a regulation American Football field in a single layer of
M&Ms.

IPv6 would fill the great lakes. All of the great lakes.
To the rim.

In terms of host addresses per subnet, IPv4 gives you
a large bag of M&Ms. IPv6 gives you the great lakes
full of M&Ms. All of the great lakes. To the rim.

Owen

Disclaimer: Do not attempt to eat a /64 worth of any form of M&Ms
as adverse health results are likely.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Karl Auer]

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 11:56 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think that it will not be long
> before the internet is an IPv6 ocean with islands of IPv4

My company made up some t-shirts for a conference last year. We
brainstormed the texts. I ended up with a sort of haiku:

out of the puddle
   into the ocean
  IPv6

Sadly I realised too late that it should have had a footnote: "not to
scale" :-)

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/   +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Tom Limoncelli wrote:


On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:


I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is 
already underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the 
native protocol and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to 
operate.




I'm writing an article where I want to say that but I can't find an
article I can reference to back it up.


We're an LTE operator and this is the first time I've heard about this. 
LTE supports IPv4 and IPv6 and as far as I can discern, that is a 
requirement, and there is no "hackery" to get IPv4 running.


We have yet to see any LTE terminals (USB dongels so far) that support 
IPv6. There are a lot of other kinks to work out first, going IPv6 only 
here is definitely not the place. Remember, a lot of people buying this 
service is taking the USB dongle and attaching it to their corporate XP 
laptop.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Tom Limoncelli]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already 
> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol and 
> IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>

I'm writing an article where I want to say that but I can't find an
article I can reference to back it up.

I don't want to accidentally encourage an urban legend or rumor.  (For
example, I can't find verification to the rumor that ARIN rejected a
request from LTE providers for IPv4 space and instead told them to go
straight to IPv6.  I do others in this thread saying that native IPv4
on LTE is common, so unless someone can give me evidence, I'll have to
update that part of the article.  OMG i'd love to make that point;
anyone have proof?).

I could, instead, write, "most carriers will probably roll IPv6 out as
part of their 4G upgrade" but that sounds wishy-washy.

Thanks in advance,
Tom

-- 
http://EverythingSysadmin.com  -- my blog (new posts Mon and Wed)
http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my advice (more videos coming soon)

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates]

On 2/11/2011 5:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

No, you grossly underestimate the motivation that will exist to get the
eyeball networks v6 capable.



eyeball networks... we hack and patch them together. Silly putty is very 
useful. IPv6 rollouts are no different. Just more silly putty.



IPv4 support for all the applications and appliances that don't support 
IPv6 is what will suck. So, don't worry about the ISP. Core networks are 
gearing up super fast (they've actually been at it for years, just not 
rolled it out), eyeballs will hack and patch easy enough (CPEs aren't 
that large a deal, and 6rd even gets us around internal v4 only problems 
in those isolated areas), many standard services on the net are v6 
capable. Those which aren't, that's their own fault. They've had decades. :)




Jack

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:59 -0500, George Bonser  wrote:
>> The thing is that a very few networks account for a very large amount of
>> traffic.
> 
> Traffic has to have two end points.  Just because the content source supports 
> IPv6 does not mean the content request will be.  That's the "millions of 
> eyeballs" (aka sheep.)
> 
> You don't seem to grasp the full picture... There are 4 parts to the equation:
> 1. Content Source
> 2. Transit network(s)
> 3. CPE
> 4. Content Consumer
> 
> Fixing the source (be it Facebook, Youtube, or netflix) is rather simple in 
> concept -- it's just one network, and doesn't require touching millions of 
> devices.  Transit networks are hit-n-miss, but is becoming less of a burden.  
> The CPE on the other hand is a whole other mess... there are thousands (into 
> millions) that will need firmware upgrades or complete replacement to support 
> IPv6. (That's the cablemodems, dsl modem, Uverse RGs, FiOS ONTs, and 
> linksys's and netgears of the world.) And *then* the device that actually 
> wants the content has to have support. (that'd be you roku, blu-ray player, 
> console, laptop, cellphone, picture frame, etc.)
> 
The CPE is an expected problem that most providers have been doing
some level of planning for.

I'm quite certain it will get solved in one of the following ways:

1.  Provider ships replacement box.
2.  Provider tells customer "As of X date, your current CPE will no longer 
be
supported. Go buy one of these:" followed by a list of qualified CPE
devices.
3.  Provider finds some other way to get CPE to customers.

>> What is the natural "churn" rate for CPE for one of the large MSOs?
> 
> How often MSO's replace CPE gear? "When it breaks" and "when it's no longer 
> compat"  I don't know about your cable company, but TW doesn't replace 
> anything unless it's broken.  I've had the same SB5100 for nearly a decade. 
> (they did replace the SB3100/4100's a few years back, but they were no longer 
> compatible with the network.)
> 
When the provider needs their customers to be IPv6 compatible, then IPv4 gear 
will be "broken" for all practical purposes in the above sentence.

This will happen much faster than you expect.

> AT&T DSL also doesn't replace CPE's unless they break. (or you buy a new 
> one.)  In bridge mode, any modem will do.  It's when the modem is also the 
> router (which is most cases today) that it will need attention to support 
> IPv6. (in bridge mode, you'll have to fix whatever it's plugged into, but 
> that's the customer's problem... off to Best Buy for an IPv6 capable D-Link.)
> 
See above.

>> What portion of the MSOs have v6 capable CPE in place right now...
> 
> Unknown.  I've not known any MSO to publish those numbers.  Any sane MSO is 
> handing out D3 modems even if they are still running a D2 network, so new 
> connections (or replacements) should be D3.
> 
Yes... All D3 modems are required to be IPv6 ready.

So, any plant where the customers have D3, it's a configuration issue
to provide IPv6 once the rest of the network is ready.

>> you only need about five
> 
> If you're thinking of five major cable operators, they aren't each "one 
> network" but are a group of franchises/markets running more or less 
> independent of each other.
> 
Not so much as you think on the IP side of things.

>> Yes, and I mentioned that.  So once you have >50% of the potential
>> content sources v6 capable and >50% of the potential eyeballs v6
>> capable, you have potentially 25% of internet traffic on v6.  And that
>> can be done with the migration of enough networks to count on your
>> fingers.
> 
> Heh.  No it can't.  You grossly underestimate the work necessary to get the 
> eyeballs v6 capable.  If Comcast has to replace as little as 10% of their 
> modems, that'd be over 1mil.  That's not going to happen overnight. (or even 
> a month.)
> 
No, you grossly underestimate the motivation that will exist to get the
eyeball networks v6 capable.

Comcast has over 20 million subscribers. Their subscribers fall into two
categories:

1.  Subscribers with their own gear:
Comcast will probably send them a note that tells them
it's time to buy new gear with specifications on what 
to buy.
2.  Subscribers that pay Comcast a monthly fee to "rent" that gear:
Comcast will probably swap out their gear. Yes, it may 
be over
a $million, but, Comcast collects $millions per month 
in gear
rental fees from which that can easily be covered. 
There will
be no real problem in terms of the cost here.

On the flip side of the equation, all of them are going to have to start
delivering new services on IPv6 equipment with IPv6 support pretty
soon anyway. As such, bringing the existing customers forward becomes
a cost reduction m

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>>> There is no hackery require to make IPv4 work in LTE.  LTE supports
>>> IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6 bearers all the same... its just an option from
>>> the core perspective, handset / chipset makers like to limit the
>>> options to keep cost and variability down.
>>> 
>> My understanding (admittedly second hand, so perhaps the engineer
>> explaining it to me was mistaken) was that LTE was IPv6 and that IPv4
>> was implemented on the radio side essentially as a 4in6 tunnel with a
>> very very short-term DHCP lease for the v4 address.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Nope, it does not work this way.  There are tunnels for mobility, and
> it is possible that IPv4 user plane packet get carried in IPv6 GTP
> packets but that is the same case for IPv6 user plane also being in
> IPv6 GTP packets but LTE generally does not use any DHCP to the
> user.
> 
> Key point: LTE does not imply any mandatory IPv6 networks
> infrastructure or services, but it does work with IPv6 and should be
> deployed with IPv6.
> 
> Cameron
> (who works in mobile, everyday)

OK... Thanks for the clarification. So did the other guy who gave me the
other story.

I won't pretend to be a mobile expert.

Owen

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> So riddle me this - what CPE stuff were they giving out in 2009 that
> was already v6-able? (and actually *tested* as being v6-able, rather
> than "It's supposed to work but since we don't do v6 on the live net,
> nobody's ever actually *tried* it...")

I would venture to say the same as today's CPE if they are issuing today
the same CPE to new customers that they were issuing in 2009.

I do know that in my area it has changed since 2007.  But I don't know
when they started issuing the current CPE.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Benson Schliesser]

On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:

> Not true. Two of my former employers went to ARIN every year or two and
> received blocks around a /16 in size, specifically for use on global IP 
> networks
> that did not intend to ever announce those addresses on the Internet. There
> are several other companies which operate somewhat similar networks.
> 
> Also, "announce to the Internet" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Exactly.  Further, just because it's announced doesn't mean it's reachable or 
even connected.

Cheers,
-Benson

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:21:49 PST, George Bonser said:
> That is a different question.  People are always moving, for example,
> turning in their old CPE and getting new.  Old ones break and need to be
> replaced with a new one.  Let's say the gear they have been handing out
> over the past couple of years has had v6 capability.

So riddle me this - what CPE stuff were they giving out in 2009 that was
already v6-able? (and actually *tested* as being v6-able, rather than "It's
supposed to work but since we don't do v6 on the live net, nobody's ever
actually *tried* it...")



pgpdejZEDj6HD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[George Bonser]

> 
> Fixing the source (be it Facebook, Youtube, or netflix) is rather
> simple
> in concept -- it's just one network, and doesn't require touching
> millions
> of devices.  Transit networks are hit-n-miss, but is becoming less of
a
> burden.  The CPE on the other hand is a whole other mess... there are
> thousands (into millions) that will need firmware upgrades or complete
> replacement to support IPv6.

I would venture to say that it is likely that most of the CPE deployed
over the past couple of years is capable of supporting v6 even if v6 is
not currently deployed on that CPE.


 (That's the cablemodems, dsl modem, Uverse
> RGs, FiOS ONTs, and linksys's and netgears of the world.) And *then*
> the
> device that actually wants the content has to have support. (that'd be
> you
> roku, blu-ray player, console, laptop, cellphone, picture frame, etc.)

You are "frame dragging" what I said into something I didn't say.  What
I said was that it will take v6 deployment in only a tiny portion of the
number of networks to account for a large amount of the traffic.  There
is a lot of v6 capability that is just sitting there at the moment.  I
never said v4 support would go away, in fact, I said it would be around
for decades.  

> > What is the natural "churn" rate for CPE for one of the large MSOs?
> 
> How often MSO's replace CPE gear? 

That is a different question.  People are always moving, for example,
turning in their old CPE and getting new.  Old ones break and need to be
replaced with a new one.  Let's say the gear they have been handing out
over the past couple of years has had v6 capability.  So not only have
all new deployments had the capability for v6 once the provider turns it
up, a good number of legacy installations have been gaining v6
capability as old gear is changed out for new.

How many CPE units does Comcast go through in a month?  That would be
about the rate of v6 capability being deployed out there even if v6
isn't turned up on it.


> "When it breaks" and "when it's no
> longer compat"  I don't know about your cable company, but TW doesn't
> replace anything unless it's broken.  

Correct, and a certain number of those break every month.  With every
passing month the amount of CPE out there that isn't v6 capable
declines.


> I've had the same SB5100 for
> nearly
> a decade. 

This isn't about you or me.  It is about "the net" in aggregate.  V4
will continue to work, and those with older stuff will get v4.  But at
some point there are going to be people who decide to deploy a site that
is v6 only.  It will be "cool" and only "certain" people will be able to
get to the content.  Probably college kids and aging hipsters.  Then
other people will start hearing about it and want access to it ... and
will demand their ISP get them on v6 pronto ;)


> Heh.  No it can't.  You grossly underestimate the work necessary to
get
> the eyeballs v6 capable.  If Comcast has to replace as little as 10%
of
> their modems, that'd be over 1mil.  That's not going to happen
> overnight.
> (or even a month.)
> 
> --Ricky

They are constantly replacing them, all the time.  Every day they
replace a few more.  Someone moves, turns in their old cable box, gets a
new one at the new place.  Kid spills milk in it, it gets dropped,
whatever. Old CPE attritions out of the installed base every day, I just
don't know what the annual churn rate is. But I do believe that if IPv6
were enabled in a market today on some carrier, there would be an
installed base of gear right now that could handle it on day one that
would represent an amount of traffic that is not insignificant.

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates]

On 2/11/2011 3:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:

In bridge mode, any modem will do.  It's when the modem is also the
router (which is most cases today) that it will need attention to
support IPv6. (in bridge mode, you'll have to fix whatever it's plugged
into, but that's the customer's problem... off to Best Buy for an IPv6
capable D-Link.)


I just finished discussing with the one telco in my network that 
deployed PPPoE. All customers will bring their modem into the office, 
where the front desk ladies will flash the config to bridge mode. It was 
that or replace thousands of CPE that never will support IPv6 in routed 
mode.


Have a nice day.



Jack

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Michael Dillon]

> One example I heard was a generic financial exchange connected to
> perhaps a hundred other companies. Those companies also connect to the
> Internet but the exchange itself does not. It's valuable for the
> exchange to use addressing which will not conflict with any of its
> customers' RFC1918 use or overlap any Internet destinations they want
> to access.

Sounds like SFTI in New York
http://www.nyse.com/technologies/sfti/1223635951074.html

In turn, SFTI is connected to the Radianz global IP network which
allows financial industry
companies in other countries to access the NYSE services on SFTI. And
the Radianz
global IP network has over 15,000 sites connected to it in some 200
countries. Probably
all of the companies connected to Radianz also have an Internet
connection, but nobody
passes packets between Radianz and the Internet.

Radianz is an example of a COIN (Community of Interest Network).
Outside the Financial Services
industry there are similar COINs in the air traffic industry (SITA)
and the auto manufacturing industry.
If you diagrammed these COINs on a typical Internet diagram, they
would be a thin layer, one AS thick,
wrapped around some portion of the cloud's perimeter. Invisible to
most because they connect but
do not exchange transit traffic.

Zoom in an look at ASCustomer which peers with three ISP ASnumbers and
also peers with ASRadianz.
But the traffic from ASRadianz is controlled by firewalls and internal
routing in ASCustomer so that it
only goes to the trading workstations, while the Internet traffic is
allowed pretty much everywhere.

You could make various biological analogies such as the specialised
layers of human skin cells or
the micturating membrane in amphibians.

--Michael Dillon

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Cameron Byrne]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already 
>>> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol 
>>> and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>>>
>>> In the WiMax case (Gee, thanks, SPRINT), things are a bit murkier, but, I 
>>> think you will see WiMax go IPv6 pretty quickly as well.
>>>
>>> Yes, it will take a little longer to retire the 3G system(s) than many 
>>> other parts of the internet, but, I think you will see most of it going 
>>> away in the 5-7 year range.
>>>
>>
>> This is not quite the case.  2G / 3G / 4G largely refers to radio
>> interface aspects, and the packet core that moves IP packets is
>> largely the same.  I have a 5 year old 2G/GSM Nokia phone that support
>> IPv6 over cellular just fine on my network today.
>>
> Sure, there are some 3G systems that support IPv6, but, most carriers will
> probably roll IPv6 out as part of their 4G upgrade from what I have seen.
>

Yep, 4G projects should add IPv6, most people agree about this.

>> There are several LTE deployments around the world that are IPv4 only.
>>
> I think if you look under the hood, they may only provide internet routing
> for IPv4, but, I don't think they are IPv4 only across the radio.
>

Nope.

>> There is no hackery require to make IPv4 work in LTE.  LTE supports
>> IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6 bearers all the same... its just an option from
>> the core perspective, handset / chipset makers like to limit the
>> options to keep cost and variability down.
>>
> My understanding (admittedly second hand, so perhaps the engineer
> explaining it to me was mistaken) was that LTE was IPv6 and that IPv4
> was implemented on the radio side essentially as a 4in6 tunnel with a
> very very short-term DHCP lease for the v4 address.
>
>

Nope, it does not work this way.  There are tunnels for mobility, and
it is possible that IPv4 user plane packet get carried in IPv6 GTP
packets but that is the same case for IPv6 user plane also being in
IPv6 GTP packets but LTE generally does not use any DHCP to the
user.

Key point: LTE does not imply any mandatory IPv6 networks
infrastructure or services, but it does work with IPv6 and should be
deployed with IPv6.

Cameron
(who works in mobile, everyday)

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Michael Dillon]

> Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of the
> resource.

No it is not. IP was invented to enable internetworking. The IPv4
address registry
was set up so that anyone who wanted to use IP for internetworking could get
unique addresses. The key here, is internetworking, which refers to exchanging
packets with other networks. It is possible to internetwork without
ever exchanging
packets with the public Internet.

>  Go to any registry and ask for address space for your private
> networking that you do not intend to announce to the internet.  They will
> laugh at you, and point you to RFC1918. (and likely flag you as someone to
> whom address space should never be assigned.)

Not true. Two of my former employers went to ARIN every year or two and
received blocks around a /16 in size, specifically for use on global IP networks
that did not intend to ever announce those addresses on the Internet. There
are several other companies which operate somewhat similar networks.

Also, "announce to the Internet" doesn't mean what you think it does. First
of all there is no Internet to announce to, only peers, There are a
lot of smaller
networks which do announce routes to a small number of regional peers, but
those routes are NOT transitively announced to the rest of the public Internet.
These networks *ARE* connected to the Internet, but you won't see their
routes in any of the major views (routeviews, ris, etc) which are considered
as the global routing table.

> The only reason legacy
> holders get away with such crap is because there's no clear contract
> governing their assignment.

All of the companies that I am aware of who get RIR addresses with no intention
of announcing it on the Internet, are paid up members in good standing of one
or more RIRs. Legacy holders really don't play in this game except for the DOD.

> First off, someone will have to do a lot more than 5 minutes of poking
> router-servers to see just how sparsely used ("announced") the space really
> is.  That includes digging through BGP histories to see if it's ever been
> announced.  Then research who should be in control of the space (announced
> or not.)  Then send out nasty sounding letters informing whomever that X
> address space has not been announced to the public internet in Y years; on Z
> date, the space will reenter the IANA/ICANN free pool for reassignment. (cue
> lawyers :-))  They'd also be highly motivated to return unused space if they
> were being billing for it.

First of all, tools like RIPE's RIS make checking BGP history child's
play. Secondly,
you left out the court cases where the companies all get injunctions
against ARIN
because ARIN did regularly give them addresses under ARIN policy and nothing
has changed to justify pulling the addresses back. These addresses are in use,
i.e. configured in devices that provide a commercial internetworking
service with
packets flowing 24 hours a day.

--Michael Dillon

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Ricky Beam]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:59 -0500, George Bonser   
wrote:

The thing is that a very few networks account for a very large amount of
traffic.


Traffic has to have two end points.  Just because the content source  
supports IPv6 does not mean the content request will be.  That's the  
"millions of eyeballs" (aka sheep.)


You don't seem to grasp the full picture... There are 4 parts to the  
equation:

1. Content Source
2. Transit network(s)
3. CPE
4. Content Consumer

Fixing the source (be it Facebook, Youtube, or netflix) is rather simple  
in concept -- it's just one network, and doesn't require touching millions  
of devices.  Transit networks are hit-n-miss, but is becoming less of a  
burden.  The CPE on the other hand is a whole other mess... there are  
thousands (into millions) that will need firmware upgrades or complete  
replacement to support IPv6. (That's the cablemodems, dsl modem, Uverse  
RGs, FiOS ONTs, and linksys's and netgears of the world.) And *then* the  
device that actually wants the content has to have support. (that'd be you  
roku, blu-ray player, console, laptop, cellphone, picture frame, etc.)



What is the natural "churn" rate for CPE for one of the large MSOs?


How often MSO's replace CPE gear? "When it breaks" and "when it's no  
longer compat"  I don't know about your cable company, but TW doesn't  
replace anything unless it's broken.  I've had the same SB5100 for nearly  
a decade. (they did replace the SB3100/4100's a few years back, but they  
were no longer compatible with the network.)


AT&T DSL also doesn't replace CPE's unless they break. (or you buy a new  
one.)  In bridge mode, any modem will do.  It's when the modem is also the  
router (which is most cases today) that it will need attention to support  
IPv6. (in bridge mode, you'll have to fix whatever it's plugged into, but  
that's the customer's problem... off to Best Buy for an IPv6 capable  
D-Link.)



What portion of the MSOs have v6 capable CPE in place right now...


Unknown.  I've not known any MSO to publish those numbers.  Any sane MSO  
is handing out D3 modems even if they are still running a D2 network, so  
new connections (or replacements) should be D3.



you only need about five


If you're thinking of five major cable operators, they aren't each "one  
network" but are a group of franchises/markets running more or less  
independent of each other.



Yes, and I mentioned that.  So once you have >50% of the potential
content sources v6 capable and >50% of the potential eyeballs v6
capable, you have potentially 25% of internet traffic on v6.  And that
can be done with the migration of enough networks to count on your
fingers.


Heh.  No it can't.  You grossly underestimate the work necessary to get  
the eyeballs v6 capable.  If Comcast has to replace as little as 10% of  
their modems, that'd be over 1mil.  That's not going to happen overnight.  
(or even a month.)


--Ricky