Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Fwd: Last Call: draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues (Additional Private IPv4 Space) to INFORMATIONAL RFC]

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:32:40 -0400

From my discussions with a number of providers at the IETF meeting last week, they are all looking for a bit more private address space to provide them with a bit of breathing room while they transition to IPv6. Every provider that I talked to was working on IPv6 transition, but none of them could turn it on overnight. 
- Philip

On 2010-07-26, at 17:31 , Mark Andrews wrote:

> 
> In message <AANLkTi=65nxb_baJL=[email-masked]>, Came
> ron Byrne writes:
>> d.  IPv6-only networks with NAT64 / DNS64.  This option best
>> encourages the use of IPv6 and really gets network and application
>> designers focused on the end-game, not wallowing in some middle-state
>> of CGN / LSN / and endless NAT444.
> 
> Anything for big networks will require some form of address sharing
> between customers.  NAT64 / DS-LITE / NAT444.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:18:34 +1200

Philip,

I have no reason to doubt that many ISPs would like a little bit more
private space. But how does that affect the arguments that any such
space would create problems, which seems to be the point of this draft?

Regards
   Brian

On 2010-08-03 02:32, Philip Matthews wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 06:08:51 -0400

Hmm... Perhaps I missing something, but I just re-read the draft and I didn't see that it was arguing against allocating additional space.   It pointed out some problems, but they didn't seem unsurmountable to me. The operators I talked with told me "We know there are problems, but we are willing to live with them, because we really need extra IPv4 space. We HAVE to get extra space from somewhere."
Some of the operators I talked with are those behind    http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-00.txt
- Philip

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:30:38 +1200

Philip,

This draft doesn't actually propose to allocate such space, so the fact that
some ISPs want it is beside the point of the draft.

There are other drafts that do make such a proposal, but as far as I know they
aren't in Last Call.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:55:23 -0700

> There are other drafts that do make such a proposal, but as far as I know they

I'm sort of mystified by the intersection of

draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues

and

draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-00

which sites it as an informative reference.

   Addressing solutions for dealing with the depletion of the IPv4
   public address space and the lack of available private addresses
   within large providers are presented in
   [I-D.azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues] as well as
   [I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr].  For larger Service Providers
   who require more than the 16 million Net-10 addresses, the preferred
   method for addressing the problems presented in both draft documents
   is to direct IANA to reserve a /8 from its unassigned IPv4 address
   pool.

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:39:16 -0400

Joel,

[preface - I have a bias]

The basic point being made in [draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space] was
that of the options (all problematic in some fashion), the reservation of a
/8 was the most workable option.

I do not think anyone is denying that this option has its problems, but all
options have their problems and we are trying to choose one that is least
impacting.  As noted in the OPSAWG WG session, this (/8 from IANA) was noted
as the option that "poses the least challenges".  This last statement was
made in response to the notion (rightfully so) "protocols like 6to4 would be
impacted".  (by the way there may be a way around this since it's the
example brought up the most)

Of the options posed in draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-issues, many
are not workable.  IPv6, although the best solution is just not feasible as
a "complete" solution in the very near future in many networks (now till
past IPv4 run out) since many vendor systems (CPE space, provider space etc)
and upstream applications are just not IPv6 ready now (if anyone does not
like this, please contact your local vendor).  Of the other solutions, the
Class E space is not a realistic option, and address swapping is not likely
to work (I would almost assert - impossible given the fiasco that will arise
after IPv4 run out).

Based on these points, the SP will then be left with a couple of options,
have access to a new /8 to provide more race track while IPv6 is put online
(remember even some transition options need IPv4 space to glue the CPE to
the upstream box like 6RD and NAT444) or camp out on IPv4 space anyway
(unrouted IPv4 space that is assigned.  If the /8 is not provided, then the
latter is likely to occur, which will bring all the problems related to a
the proposed option (in draft-weil) plus the added problems which arise when
camping on other's IP address space.

Victor

On 03/08/10 6:55 PM, "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Hmm... Perhaps I missing something, but I just re-read the draft and I
>>> didn't see that it was arguing against allocating additional space.   It
>>> pointed out some problems, but they didn't seem unsurmountable to me. The
>>> operators I talked with told me "We know there are problems, but we are
>>> willing to live with them, because we really need extra IPv4 space. We HAVE
>>> to get extra space from somewhere."
>>> Some of the operators I talked with are those behind
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-00.txt
>>> - Philip
>>> 
>>>>> From my discussions with a number of providers at the IETF meeting last
>>>>> week, they are all looking for a bit more private address space to provide
>>>>> them with a bit of breathing room while they transition to IPv6. Every
>>>>> provider that I talked to was working on IPv6 transition, but none of them
>>>>> could turn it on overnight.
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In message 
>>>>>> <AANLkTi=65nxb_baJL=[email-masked]>, Came
>>>>>> ron Byrne writes:

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:53:17 +1200

Victor,

> IPv6, although the best solution is just not feasible as
> like this, please contact your local vendor). 

Sure. See draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios. But these are *product* issues,
and giving those vendors yet more time to fail to meet a requirement
that has been clear since 1996 is surely not the right message.

IMHO, the IETF's job (as in draft-azinger-) is to document the problems
that extra private space would cause.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:30:09 -0700

Victor...

> camping on other's IP address space.

That's sounds kind of like a shake-down... Provide us more address-space
or we'll kill the baby.

The fact of the matter is we're going to employee ugly transition
schemes anyway and the question is only when and how many times we're
going to pay for it not if...

Regarding camping on other's IP space, "hey it's not our fault we're
camping on a /8 that got assigned out from under us" is a pretty shallow
excuse. It was a business decision to do that before just as it is today
and the consequences were known then and now.

This comes down to venue shopping. The RIRs can't provide what we think
you need anymore so we're here at the IETF dicussing whether to soak up
an addtional 16.7 million addresses as rfc1918 space...

Heck I'm in favor of that, RFC1918 space isn't big enough for my
employer either and we're not even a Cable MSO but I think that probably
comes to bear on the point of whether and how long you can expect and
justification of fewer collisions with net 10 having any merit.