Subject: Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question)

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:21:56 -0500

Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email-masked]>
> On dinsdag, apr 29, 2003, at 20:24 Europe/Amsterdam, Peter Deutsch
> wrote:
>
> > - So what percentage of machines really are being NATed right now?
>
> > - What percentage of traffic is generated and consumed by NATed
> > hosts?
>
> How is answering any of these questions going to help us? "Oh, NATed
> traffic is 7% and not 5%! You are right we should have site local
> addresses then!"

But if the number were 50% or higher, I'd think that would have some bearing
on things.  If nothing else, it should convince the anti-NAT crowd to work
harder at finding other solutions.

> - If we allow people to register non-routable globally unique addresses
> for private use, eventually some of this address space will leak out
> into the global routing table. In IPv4, filtering private address
> ranges and long prefixes is well-established and if and when this
> fails, the consequences are negligible.

Without an explicit directive from the IETF (a la RFC2050), the RIRs will
not do this.  In words attributed to an ARIN staffer, "We only register
addresses for the Internet, not private networks."

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:32:11 -0500

Thus spake "John Kristoff" <[email-masked]>
> This seems OK to me and appears to put the burden in the right place.
> Shouldn't it be the responsibility of those who are allocated address
> space to properly manage it?  Others can still filter on long and valid
> prefixes that they expect to hear.

Or, if these non-routed allocations were from a specific IANA-designated
block, providers could simply filter them all with one directive.

> ...and if its gonna leak anyway, it might as well be globally unique.
> Other networks will certainly be less likely to collide and try to
> communicate with the leaked space.

Certainly.  However, providers tend to advertise whatever customers pay them
to advertise, so these "non routable" blocks may end up permanently
reachable from non-trivial portions of the Internet.

There are many applications, such as pre-positioned content caching, where
it's desirable to only have connectivity to those topologically "close".
Overall, though, this makes it even more important that we find a workable
solution to the multiple-address problem.

S

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:45:35 -0500

There are some applications, such as pre-positioned content caching, where
it's desirable to only have connectivity to those topologically "close".
Overall, though, this makes it even more important that we find a workable
solution to the multiple-address problem.

S

---

From: Quality Quorum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:43:58 -0400

> harder at finding other solutions.

Counting by network nodes it is around 100%, very few PCs in the world
have global address.

> addresses for the Internet, not private networks."

Thanks,

Aleksey