Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote: What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other vendors have just blown me off all together (we'll have it sometime). Right. And I'm also the only one asking for 32-bit AS numbers. People who run networks can do a lot: believe it or not, the IETF really wants input from network operators, especially in the early phases of protocol development when the requirements are established. Serious input and participation means work and money. You can participate on mailinglists without attending meetings, so in that sense it doesn't have to cost money. As an operator, it would make sense to spend a little time in the requirements phase but not after that. So yes, it would take time, but we're not talking about hours a day on an ongoing basis. Doesn't help that when I was a wee one, mom dated someone who bragged about his status in the IETF :-) and even had a pen. Sad way to be introduced to any organization, but I have seen similar mentalities regarding IETF mentioned here reinforcing my belief that arrogance is alive and I don't have the time and money to deal with it. In any case, if you have input on this whole NAT64 business, let me and/or Fred know. If you have input on anything else, speak up on this list or a NANOG meeting and there's a decent chance that someone will take those comments back to the IETF.
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On 23 apr 2009, at 12:23, Nathan Ward wrote: Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not so good for getting things changed. That's what I've found, anyway. Might not always be true. Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's hard to undo that. But there are also times when even a single message containing good arguments can have an effect. Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X, even if Y is the superior solution.
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's hard to undo that. That's an understatement. Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X, even if Y is the superior solution. Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote: After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3 years, it's pretty hard to get anything done without going to meetings. Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not so good for getting things changed. That's what I've found, anyway. Might not always be true. If you were to go to meetings, you would realize that it won't help in gettings things changed significantly better than active mailing list participation would... :-/ -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote: Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group for being full of vendors. Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group. That would be how change is brought about in a participative organisation, no? :) Adrian
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:17:07PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote: Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group for being full of vendors. Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group. That would be how change is brought about in a participative organisation, no? :) Adrian Operator participation in IETF has been a problem for at least 18 years. I remember a fairly large dustup w/ John Curran and Scott Bradner over why the OPS area was so lacking in actual operators at the Columbus IETF. Its never gotten any better. IETF used to be populated by developers and visionaries (grad students with lofty ideas). Once commercialization set in (they graduated and got jobs) their funding sources changed from government grants to salaries. And management took a more active role. the outcome is that vendors now control much of the IETF participation and indirectly control IETF output. just my 0.02 from the cheap seats. --bill
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On 24/04/2009, at 12:14 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote: After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3 years, it's pretty hard to get anything done without going to meetings. Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not so good for getting things changed. That's what I've found, anyway. Might not always be true. If you were to go to meetings, you would realize that it won't help in gettings things changed significantly better than active mailing list participation would... :-/ I got heaps done in SFO - to the point where I'm happy to pay to get to Stockholm and Hiroshima later this year (I'm self employed, and live at the end of the world, so for me it's harder than most who just have to convince the boss :-). -- Nathan Ward
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote: Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group. That would be how change is brought about in a participative organisation, no? :) Why don't you start by simpling stating what you want to have happen? So far I've seen a number of messages complaining about the IETF (btw, if you like complaining about the IETF, go to the meetings, there is significant time set aside for that there) but not a single technical request, remark or observation. The IETF works by rough consensus. That means if people disagree, nothing much happens. That is annoying. But a lot of good work gets done when people agree, and a lot of the time good technical arguments help. Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not start by giving some?
NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On 22 apr 2009, at 0:19, Owen DeLong wrote: B) Again, while it might be the IETF's job, shouldn't the group trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are designed is such a way to guarantee maximum adoption of v6 and thus reducing the potential for depletion of v4 space. The IETF specifically does not accept organizational input and requires instead that individuals participate. So how is the RIR model where you become a member and then participate better? If ARIN or the other RIRs have compelling arguments the only reason those arguments are compelling is because of their merit, not because they're from a RIR. it means that even if ARIN could develop a public opinion (which would have to come from the ARIN community by some process which we don't really have as yet), this opinion wouldn't mean much in the IETF's eyes. Well, if you, ARIN, or anyone else has input that should be considered when writing with a better specification for an IPv6-IPv4 translator, please let us know. For the past year or so the IETF behave working group has been considering the issue, and looked at a whole bunch of scenarios: from a small IPv6 network to the public IPv4 internet, to private IPv4 addresses, from a small IPv4 network to the public IPv6 internet, to (not entirely) private IPv6 addresses. The IPv6-IPv4 case seems doable with a bunch of caveats (it's still NAT) and we (for some value of we) want to get it out fast, but the other way around looks much more difficult and will at the very least take longer. The softwire(s?) working group is looking at tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 towards a big carrier grade NAT so IPv4 hosts/applications can still work across an IPv6 access network with only one layer of NAT. In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user. So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6 deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4 addresses.
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user. So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6 deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4 addresses. I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published? If the IETF is talking future and developers are also talking future, us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on. /RANT Jack
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote: I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published? That's certainly one way to look at this, and I'm just as unhappy about how long this has taken as you. On the other hand, it has been argued that these issues are outside the scope of the IETF in the first place, as it's just application of already established protocols, not developing something new. So another way to look at it is that at least the IETF is finally doing something because so far, nobody else has. What would have helped here is more push in this direction. If the IETF is talking future and developers are also talking future, us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on. People who run networks can do a lot: believe it or not, the IETF really wants input from network operators, especially in the early phases of protocol development when the requirements are established. Proprietary methods duking it out in the market place is nice for stuff that happens inside one box or at least within one administrative domain, but it would be a nightmare in broadband deployment where I want my Windows box to talk to my Apple wifi base station and my Motorola cable modem to the ISP's Cisco headend and their Extreme switches and Juniper routers.
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
Ron Bonica is leading a BOF during NANOG46 in Philly which may be of interest - BOF: IETF OPS MGMT Area, Ron Bonica, Juniper Networks Presentation Date: June 14, 2009, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM Abstract: The IETF OPS MGMT Area documents management technologies and operational best common practices. The purpose of this BoF is to review activities in that area and solicit feedback to determine the usefulness of those activities to the operator community. We will also solicit proposals for new work that is of interest to users. The full agenda is up at - http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/agenda.php Cheers, -ren On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com wrote: On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote: I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published? That's certainly one way to look at this, and I'm just as unhappy about how long this has taken as you. On the other hand, it has been argued that these issues are outside the scope of the IETF in the first place, as it's just application of already established protocols, not developing something new. So another way to look at it is that at least the IETF is finally doing something because so far, nobody else has. What would have helped here is more push in this direction. If the IETF is talking future and developers are also talking future, us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on. People who run networks can do a lot: believe it or not, the IETF really wants input from network operators, especially in the early phases of protocol development when the requirements are established. Proprietary methods duking it out in the market place is nice for stuff that happens inside one box or at least within one administrative domain, but it would be a nightmare in broadband deployment where I want my Windows box to talk to my Apple wifi base station and my Motorola cable modem to the ISP's Cisco headend and their Extreme switches and Juniper routers.
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: What would have helped here is more push in this direction. What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other vendors have just blown me off all together (we'll have it sometime). People who run networks can do a lot: believe it or not, the IETF really wants input from network operators, especially in the early phases of protocol development when the requirements are established. Serious input and participation means work and money. Too much for me. Doesn't help that when I was a wee one, mom dated someone who bragged about his status in the IETF and even had a pen. Sad way to be introduced to any organization, but I have seen similar mentalities regarding IETF mentioned here reinforcing my belief that arrogance is alive and I don't have the time and money to deal with it. Proprietary methods duking it out in the market place is nice for stuff that happens inside one box or at least within one administrative domain, but it would be a nightmare in broadband deployment where I want my Windows box to talk to my Apple wifi base station and my Motorola cable modem to the ISP's Cisco headend and their Extreme switches and Juniper routers. Sure, but the largest missing pieces for IPv6 are single box implementations. Proprietary NAT is single box. Will it break stuff? Probably, but when hasn't it? Corporate networks won't care. They'll deploy the vendor that supports it if that is what they want. BRAS/Aggregation is another single box solution but defines everything about an edge broadband network, supported by the access devices (switches, dslams, wireless ap/backhauls, etc). The layer 3 aware access devices all tend to have their own single box methods of security (DHCP snooping, broadcast scoping, etc, etc). I've seen quite a few systems that can't turn the security support off and break IPv6 because of it. Jack
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
On 23/04/2009, at 8:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote: Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user. So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6 deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4 addresses. I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published? If the IETF is talking future and developers are also talking future, us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on. This work is actually mostly being done by some guys at Cisco, and other vendors have plenty of input as well. I would be surprised if CPEs that support the outcome of this work are far behind the RFC being published (or even a late draft). -- Nathan Ward
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]
Jack Bates wrote: Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user. So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6 deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4 addresses. I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published? ipv6 cpe devices have been / are being developed already. the doesn't mean there isn't more work to be done, in If the IETF is talking future and developers are also talking future, us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on. Generally the presumption is that people bring work that they are working on to the table. I work for an equipment vendor, if there's no reason for us to implement something why would would we expend cycles to work on it in the IETF either? /RANT Jack
