Subject: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:13:43 -0500

(NB: This doesn't directly relate to IRTF RRG work, but it does
relate to routing & addressing futures, so the IAB RAM list
seems to be the right venue for this narrow observation and
any followup discussion that might occur.)

I recently became aware of a large residential broadband operator
in North America that provides no global-scope IP addresses to
its customers.  By default there are no global-scope IP addresses
-- and none are available as an option at any price to residential
broadband subscribers to this particular service.

Instead, this operator deploys a combination/integrated home
gateway at each customer site.  This gateway is managed exclusively
by the network operator.  The only customer option (at time
of installation) is whether wireless is enabled or not.  This
gateway performs NAT/NAPT, has an 802.11 wireless service on the
customer side with WEP and WPA (but NOT 802.11i or WPA2), and
uses DHCP to distribute private (RFC-1918; specifically 192.168.x/24)
IP addresses to whatever devices the customer has on offer.
This CPE box also includes a 4-port Ethernet hub on the inside
of the NAT/NAPT to connect to any wired networks in the house.
Further, there are sundry additional packet/port filters inside
this CPE box.

The net result is that this particular operator isn't really
providing a "dialtone IP" service.  Instead, it is more nearly
a "only web and email access" service.  For example, there are
widespread reports that online gaming (e.g. using XBOX) does
not work with this service.  There are also complaints online
about how various uncommonly used transport-layer ports seem
to be blocked.  The most commonly used ports (DNS, HTTP, HTTPS,
IMAP4, SMTP, POP3) appear to work through this CPE box.  Of
course, VoIP is also blocked -- though this operator does offer
POTS lines via a separate adapter located at the customer premise.

It is unclear to me whether/how this CPE integrated/combination
home gateway is addressed.  One could imagine the CPE box being
inside 10.0/8 and individual customers being inside 192.168.x/24
with NAT/NAPT in the CPE box and then again at some larger gateway
between the local region of this service and the public again.
I don't know for certain whether the CPE box is addressed by
IP, whether it has a private IP address, or whether it has a
global-scope IP address.

NOTE WELL:
The operator has no issues with IPv4 address availability.  This
is simply how they chose to define their service offering.  They
market it as "High-speed Internet".  They believe that customers
actually prefer to have the operator provide this narrower service
rather than a "dial-tone IP" service.

TWO QUICK OBSERVATIONS:
If this becomes a widely used deployment model, and customers accept
this, then there are at least two implications to consider:
   1) IPv4 Address shortages might not be as big an issue as some think.
   2) New services really are only deployable over HTTP/HTTPS.
      Nearly any other new protocol, NAT/NAPT-friendly or not,
      would likely not be usable by these end users.

I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected.  I am sure
that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own.

Ran
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:29 -0800

Sounds like a use-case for Teredo [RFC4380]?

Fred
[email-masked] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:14 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
> 
>

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:39:11 -0800

>      would likely not be usable by these end users.

	Ran,

> that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own.

	Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this
	outcome for years.

	Dave

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:56:39 +0800

> 	Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this

Yes, and it's almost assuredly going to become more common,  
irrespective of addressing systems, routing systems, etc.  Many  
enterprises already do this to a large degree, they seem to find it an  
attractive model.

Which means that most everything ends up transported via or tunneled  
over TCP/80 and/or TCP/443, obfuscated and/or encrypted, with more and  
more interactive applications using COMET-type technologies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> // 408.527.6376 voice

	Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

            -- Ford Motor Company

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:13:08 +1300

On 2008-01-03 14:56, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> Yes, and it's almost assuredly going to become more common, irrespective 
> of addressing systems, routing systems, etc.  Many enterprises already 
> do this to a large degree, they seem to find it an attractive model.
> 

This whole horror story points to what should be the *real* political
issue, rather than the so-called "net neutrality" nonsense.

IMHO more use should be made of the terminology in RFC 4084 secttion 2.
In fact getting such terminology into consumer protection regulations
would be entirely appropriate. But that is way outside the IETF's scope.

    Brian

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:38:13 +0100

>> Which means that most everything ends up transported via or  
>> tunneled over TCP/80 and/or TCP/443

Does it? Do we really want to cripple our protocols just because a few  
ignorant service providers feel like filtering in a certain way?

(Note though that inferior protocol selection already happens to some  
degree: RTSP isn't doing so well these days, more and more stuff is  
streamed over HTTP because RTSP is firewall and NAT unfriendly.)

> would be entirely appropriate. But that is way outside the IETF's  

What I'm afraid of is that we may end up in a situation where this is  
good enough for 95% of all people and in a market place with 1 - 3  
players, nobody cares about that other 5%.

On the other hand, if that anonymous service provider has competition,  
I'm sure they're going to notice that those attract people who like to  
actually _use_ their broadband by running peer-to-peer applications.  
For just port 80, you don't need 20 Mbps. And ISPs make a lot of extra  
money upselling to higher speeds, which don't cost them much extra but  
do make them a good bit of extra money (with the exception of those  
few 24/7 downloaders).

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:47:44 +0800

On Jan 3, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Does it? Do we really want to cripple our protocols just because a  
> few ignorant service providers feel like filtering in a certain way?

No, but that seems to be the trend, for a number of reasons.

> (Note though that inferior protocol selection already happens to  
> some degree: RTSP isn't doing so well these days, more and more  
> stuff is streamed over HTTP because RTSP is firewall and NAT  
> unfriendly.)

As I mentioned before, this kind of thing is very common in enterprise  
networks, and is actually viewed as highly desirable by many in that  
space, as well as by those interested in establishing walled gardens  
in other arenas for various reasons (IMS, etc.).

While this is a timely issue, and one it's obvious many of us feel  
strongly about, it's probably way off-topic for RAM, however.

            -- Ford Motor Company

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:14:53 -0800

Roland,

> As I mentioned before, this kind of thing is very common in  
> enterprise networks, and is actually viewed as highly desirable by  
> many in that space, as well as by those interested in establishing  
> walled gardens in other arenas for various reasons (IMS, etc.).

In my experience enterprise networks may provide a similar service  
for many of their employees, they also use IP for lots of other  
things like ranging from VPNs, to business to business services, to  
external facing web services.  I don't think many enterprises would  
find a private address only IP service adequate.

Bob

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:09:48 +0800

On Jan 4, 2008, at 4:14 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:

> I don't think many enterprises would find a private address only IP  
> service adequate.

I was referring to the restrictions on protocols/ports for client-type  
hosts, not private vs. globally-routable IP addresses (though many  
enterprises use NAT for some or all their interactive client-type  
hosts).

            -- Ford Motor Company

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:23:33 -0800

On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
> .....

I also recall seeing a presentation by Geoff Huston on the same  
prediction at least couple years back.

> strongly about, it's probably way off-topic for RAM, however.

I'd agree with Roland here.

Lixia

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:58:46 +1100

> prediction at least couple years back.

I was biting my tongue, but now you mention it...

I did a presentation pack in early 2004 to the New Zealand Network 
Operators Group on this topic:
(http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2004-01-28-trashing.pdf - see 
slides 32 - 37)

But, as the pack points out, it arose from some IAB work in 2003 that 
was presented to the IETF plenary at IETF 59 in 2003 about the 
implications of an increasingly hostile internet.

    Geoff