Subject: [77attendees] Bar BOF: Impact of NAT444 on content providers

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:26:47 +1300

Bar BOF: Impact of NAT444 on content providers

Day:  Tuesday March 23
Time: 17:30
Room: TBD

Inspired by some remarks of Lorenzo Colitti (Google) at the recent
APRICOT/APNIC meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we plan to discuss the value
of a short draft aimed *specifically* at content providers, to describe
the impact on them and their customers if many of those customers are
trapped behind double IPv4 NAT (NAT444). Clearly the issues are not
news, but they tend to be described in complex general drafts, or
mixed in with proposed solutions or alternatives to double NAT.

Quoting Lorenzo: "...it would be
good to put together an IETF draft that very concisely lists the problems of
NAT444 from the content provider perspective. For example: worse geolocation
for targeted advertising and streaming content restrictions; higher latency;
IP blocking for abuse/spam causing collateral damage, etc."

(Also see http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs/ipv6_200905.pdf)

The bar BOF agenda is to decide whether to proceed with such a draft and
if so, to identify the people who will write it and the target date.

Highly relevant existing documents include:

 draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02.txt
 draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-03.txt

Drafts that touch on the topic in one way or another include:

 draft-nishitani-cgn-04.txt
 draft-shirasaki-nat444-01.txt
 draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-03.txt
 draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-04.txt
 draft-davies-reusable-ipv4-address-block-00.txt
 draft-boucadair-port-range-02.txt
 draft-ymbk-aplusp-05.txt
 draft-thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues-00.txt

     Brian Carpenter
     (whose only commitment is to make the bar BOF happen)

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:39:24 +1100

> IP blocking for abuse/spam causing collateral damage, etc."

These don't appear to be limited to NAT444, DS-Lite and NAT64 also
have these issues as they are trying to put more users behind less
addresses.
 
> _______________________________________________
> 77attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:02:54 +0900

> have these issues as they are trying to put more users behind less

Yes but at least for DS-lite and NAT64 the users are given IPv6 access. So the
content provider has a way out: enable IPv6 access to the servers (which is not
too hard to do nowadays).

With NAT444, the content provider is screwed.

Simon
-- 
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server        --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0               --> http://www.vcarddav.org

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:02:35 -0700

The title is misleading.  "NAT444" is the colloquial term for 
"double NAT":  in-home NAT and service provider NAT.  However,
the same problem occurs without the in-home NAT (that is, 
just the service provider NAT).  The problem for content 
providers are large NATs and IPv4 address sharing among 
subscribers in different physical locations, not double NAT.

Going beyond the title to Lorenzo's specific request, this seems 
a grey line to request a single document describing only 
content provider impact.  For examples:

* if my neighbor is running a POST script on a website (e.g., to 'vote
  early, vote often'), and the content provider blocks the IP
  address...  is that something that "impacts the content provider"?
  Seems answer is No.  Or does it impact the other users sharing that 
  same IPv4 address?  Seems answer is Yes.  Same for email spam
  blacklisting.
* If the web application consumes more TCP ports than available on the
  NAT, does that affect the content provider (answer: yes, has to
  design application to deal with that case, or expect application to
  break) or the user (answer: yes - content doesn't display correctly
  or maybe displays slower).
* Does inability to geo-locate affect the content provider (can't
  display targeted advertising) or the user (can't locate nearby
  businesses).

Those are just examples.  I expect we can come up with more
grey areas.

A different layout of draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues might
go a long way towards addressing the desire for a citable 
document on the negative affect of IPv4 address sharing to a 
content provider.  Failing that, perhaps a separate draft; however
it seems difficult to describe any of these as solely or even
primarily impacting the content provider -- it is the collateral
damage caused by the negative reputation of the IPv4 identifier
that is the foundation of much of the woe (for the penalty boxes).

For location delivery *solutions* with IPv4 address sharing -- which I
suppose are out of scope of this Bar BoF, but I believe are why this
document is desired -- I am aware of draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip
which suggests the first 24 bits of the client's IPv4 address be
included in the DNS query and I imagine (but do not know) that draft
is part of the motivation for this Bar BoF on IPv4 address sharing.
If location is the primary driver, have other ideas been floated and
discussed, such a The-Son-Of-Ident to query a carrier's NAT for a
subscriber's location or query the carrier's NAT for the first 24 bits
of the client's IP address?

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [77attendees] Bar BOF: Impact of NAT444 on content providers
> 
> (Also see 
> http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs/ipv6_200905.pdf)
>

---

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:06:45 -0700

This feels like the wrong list for this, but...

Dan Wing wrote:
> ...
I agree that the line is incredibly grey. How about this example: The 
"content provider" is using a peer-to-peer overlay to offload download 
traffic from their server, and the double-NAT means that the probability 
of successful peer-to-peer connections is reduced, thus increasing the 
amount of traffic which must originate from the source.

This felt initially like something outside of "content provider" scope, 
and more of a p2p research problem, and yet it also "impacts the content 
provider".

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:04:46 +1300

> This feels like the wrong list for this, but...

We don't have an ad hoc list; this topic came up at very
short notice, and we obviously need to discuss the scope,
after which maybe we can choose the perfect name for a
mailing list.

    Brian

---

From: Chris Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:53:24 -0400

> after which maybe we can choose the perfect name for a

would it hurt anything to have the discussion? it seems like there are
likely 3-4 sides of the coin, all of which could do with some
documentation, for at least the reason that there seem to be differing
perspectives on this discussion of what parts go where, and why they
are there.

-chris

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:05:20 +1300

> perspectives on this discussion of what parts go where, and why they

Absolutely. I certainly have no intention to limit initial discussion.
Maybe a better generic title is "Impact of IPv4 exhaustion
on content providers".

   Brian

---

From: Chris Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:19:14 -0400

> Maybe a better generic title is "Impact of IPv4 exhaustion

:) pls publish time/place.
thanks!

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:37:18 +1300

Day:  Tuesday March 23
Time: 17:30
Room: TBD

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:24:09 +0100

> that is the foundation of much of the woe (for the penalty boxes).

The latest rev of draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues includes an 
initial, basic assessment of whether issues identified pertain to either 
the party implementing the shared addressing solution, or to third 
parties, or both. That analysis could certainly be improved.

At present I plan to briefly present the updates to the draft in the 
intarea meeting in Anaheim, and to ask for interest in adoption as a WG 
work item. If there's energy and interest in working on improving the 
structure and content of this draft, that'd be a good place to bring it.

   - Mat

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:13:30 +1300

> structure and content of this draft, that'd be a good place to bring it.

Sure. But what we are talking about in the bar BOF is a *specific* focus
on the issues (and surprises) affecting content providers. I am quite
sure that your draft will be a major reference for any resulting
document.

   Brian