Subject: RE: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:26:32 -0700

Eliot,

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> I guess my concern is that ISPs end up routing the address
> space in Bob's proposal and that we'll have another PI problem.
> So while there's nothing wrong with Bob's proposal in theory
> (indeed I prefer it vastly to the other SL approaches), if
> customers believe they have stable addresses we could end up
> right back where we were in the early '90s. I don't see this
> happening for DSL customers but it could happenfor medium to
> large size businesses who have the power of the purse.

I raised this very issue a long time ago, but that is not the worst
problem we have. Finish the reasoning down that same path:

- Sites will get unaggregatable portable /48s.
- Their wallet will get them routed.
- Everyone is happy, no renumbering issues, multihoming is possible.

So, everyone will spend 5 bucks registering their /48, some (the ones
that currently have an AS or will request one) will actually announce
it, and we're all fat and happy. Until the GRT reaches 10k (and probably
until it reaches 50k by the time that happens given better hardware) it
won't be a concern.

What happens next is more interesting. Re-using some wording I have read
yesterday, this will become a self-regulating system, meaning that only
those who can afford it will be able to announce their /48 after some
time.

The question is: in 5 or 10 years, what are these people that are
running production networks configured with addresses that they own
going to do when they can't announce their prefix anymore? Bingo,
welcome to NATv6.

Replacing site-locals with NATv6. Think about it.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Todd T. Fries" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:13:51 -0500

Interesting point.

Feel free to look up 192.102.91.0.  It is being NAT'ed for a client of mine.
I've not convinced them yet to route it with a real firewall to their isp ;-(
-- 
Todd Fries .. [email-masked]

Free Daemon Consulting, LLC                    Land: 405-748-4596
http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com              Mobile: 405-203-6124
"..in support of free software solutions."

Key fingerprint: 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D  B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
            Key: http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt

(last updated 2003/03/13 07:14:10)

Penned by Michel Py on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:26:32AM -0700, we have:
| Eliot,
| 
| > Eliot Lear wrote:
| > I guess my concern is that ISPs end up routing the address
| > space in Bob's proposal and that we'll have another PI problem.
| > So while there's nothing wrong with Bob's proposal in theory
| > (indeed I prefer it vastly to the other SL approaches), if
| > customers believe they have stable addresses we could end up
| > right back where we were in the early '90s. I don't see this
| > happening for DSL customers but it could happenfor medium to
| > large size businesses who have the power of the purse.
| 
| I raised this very issue a long time ago, but that is not the worst
| problem we have. Finish the reasoning down that same path:
| 
| - Sites will get unaggregatable portable /48s.
| - Their wallet will get them routed.
| - Everyone is happy, no renumbering issues, multihoming is possible.
| 
| So, everyone will spend 5 bucks registering their /48, some (the ones
| that currently have an AS or will request one) will actually announce
| it, and we're all fat and happy. Until the GRT reaches 10k (and probably
| until it reaches 50k by the time that happens given better hardware) it
| won't be a concern.
| 
| What happens next is more interesting. Re-using some wording I have read
| yesterday, this will become a self-regulating system, meaning that only
| those who can afford it will be able to announce their /48 after some
| time.
| 
| The question is: in 5 or 10 years, what are these people that are
| running production networks configured with addresses that they own
| going to do when they can't announce their prefix anymore? Bingo,
| welcome to NATv6.
| 
| Replacing site-locals with NATv6. Think about it.
| 
| Michel.
| 
| 
| --------------------------------------------------------------------
| IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
| IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
| FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
| Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
| --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:12:52 +0300

As we are all looking at what to do with site locals, has anyone any text on
what happens to the old RFC 1918 addresses?

From what I have seen the 0::10:x:x:x is still going to need to be treated
as site local (private) as in a 6to4 enfironment we still need to maintain
the old rules (at least until 4 is really dead, and that can be years away).

Thus we can depreciate FEC:: /10 right now, and allow the old RFC 1918
addresses to continue to fill in the needs that people seem to want in a
non-routable address.

Otherwise we will not only need to depreciate FEC:: /10 but also all of the
current installations of RFC 1918.

This will also be where people try to sneak NATv6 into the network as these
addresses (0::10:x:x:x) were hijacked years ago, and I don't see how we will
get them back now.

Eric

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:59:58 +0200

I think you are correct that ::10:x:x:x is automatically grandfathered
by the addressing architecture, but surely it is something we should
discourage. 

   Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK