Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

From: "philemon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:39:47 +0100

Hi All

Just an input about the NAT issue handled here. The 'war' against NAT is 
senseless before succeeding the one against IPv4. I mean, as far as the v4 
protocol runs on our networks, NAT will remain as a useful tool for those 
who need it, of course for specific applications. In developing countries 
for example where IPv6 entry is very slow -add to a scarcity of IPv4 
addresses- we are always using NAT, and are happy to do so as:

1- No enough IPv4 addresses

2-No need for the specific applications for those networks

3-No alternative solution currently 'in the hands'.

Thanks

Philemon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Paul Hoffman" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

> Hi Keith,
>
> Keith Moore wrote:
>>> Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works with
>>> an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
>>
>> one is that it considers only application protocols that are in
>> widespread use.  there are lots of applications that are used by limited
>> communities that are nevertheless important.
>
> Namely?
>
>
>>   and of course, since NATs
>> are so pervasive, most of the applications that are in widespread use
>> have been made to work with NAT (often at tremendous expense, and
>> reduced reliability).
>>
> Could you explain the tremendous expense a bit more?
>
>
>> another problem is that it only considers current applications.  a big
>> part of the problem with NAT is that it inhibits the
>> development/deployment of useful new applications.
>>
>
> As Phillip stated, I don't see the problem with future applications. 
> Compare this with the security aspects that are taken care of much more 
> than before when developing new applications NAT traversal is just another 
> thing to think about as a protocol designer.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

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

---

From: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:10:43 -0400

The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring. All one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting a service provider to route them is a different problem, especially when they profit from running your traffic through their NAT.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: philemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:40 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig; Keith Moore
> Cc: Stephen Sprunk; [email-masked]; Paul Hoffman
> To: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked] [email-masked] Tue Oct 02 08:18:46 2007
From: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>
To: philemon <[email-masked]>,
	Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>,
	Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:10:43 -0400
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Stephen Sprunk <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
	Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring. All one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting a service provider to route them is a different problem, especially when they profit from running your traffic through their NAT.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: philemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:40 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig; Keith Moore
> Cc: Stephen Sprunk; [email-masked]; Paul Hoffman

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:05:39 -0400

Ray Plzak wrote:
> The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring.
that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever been
made on the ietf list.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:32:01 +0100

> that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever been

More of an ostrich than a herring?

   .="""=._    
     /  .,   .`. 
    /__(,_.-' ||                                    
   `    /|    || 
       / |    || 
        \|    ||                                    
 ~~~~~ ~ |\ ~~!)~~~~~~~    

Tim

---

From: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:47:33 -0400

should have been "is"

> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:06 AM
> To: Ray Plzak
> Cc: philemon; Hannes Tschofenig; Stephen Sprunk; [email-masked]; Paul
> Hoffman

---

From: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:47:02 -0400

Head in the sand is substituting the statement "shortage of IP addresses" for the condition of the inability to use the addresses (take your pick when it comes to infrastructure deficiencies).

Ray

> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:32 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:39:14 +1300

Ray,

I don't think it's quite fair to refer to ostriches
when ARIN is already on record:
http://www.arin.net/v6/v6-resolution.html

Also, for those who like to see things in real time,
there's always http://penrose.uk6x.com/

Regards
    Brian Carpenter
    University of Auckland

---

From: Ruri Hiromi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:24:39 +0900

dedicate to ostriches...
http://www.apple.com/en/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ 
ipv420.html

> More of an ostrich than a herring?

-------------------------------
Ruri Hiromi
[email-masked]

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:24:27 -0700

> Ray Plzak wrote:
> The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red
> herring. All one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting
> a service provider to route them is a different problem, especially
> when they profit from running your traffic through their NAT.

..or especially when a politically repressive government "encourages"
ISPs to provide addresses through NAT because a) they can control
content access better (by tricks such as transparent DNS proxies on the
NAT box) and b) because makes it more difficult for dissident web site
to pop up right and left.

Michel.

---

From: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 06:56:47 -0400

Brian,

My comment was regarding a head in the sand approach when it comes to the recurring themes that the developing world can't IP address space, whether it is v4 or v6. The fact is that they can get it from the RIR like those in the developed regions can get it from their RIRs. The real problem, in other words, putting head in sand, is to substitute this address space access issue for the real one of what can the recipients of the address space do with it when they get, particularly if they have no hardware to run it on, no electricity to power it, and no upstream willing to route it. It is those issues that need to be hit head on if the Internet is to really grow in the developing regions of the globe.

Ray

> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: Ray Plzak
> Cc: Tim Chown; [email-masked]
> > Head in the sand is substituting the statement "shortage of IP
> addresses" for the condition of the inability to use the addresses
> (take your pick when it comes to infrastructure deficiencies).
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >> herring.

---

From: Ruri Hiromi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:55:40 +0900

correction,

http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ 
ipv420.html

let me know what do you think about it :-)
Regards,

[email-masked]

---

From: Marc Manthey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:43:49 +0200

> http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ 

hi Ruri ,

well, i could imagine what its good  for , but an english version  
would be appreciated ;)

cheers

Marc

--
Marc Manthey -
LET -  research + deployment
D- 50672 Cologne
Hildeboldplatz 1a
web: http://www.let.de
my xing profile
https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey
phone &mobile:
0049.221.355.80.32
0049.177.341.54.81

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:55:37 +0200

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:55:40PM +0900,
 Ruri Hiromi <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 64 lines which said:

>http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ipv420.html
                      ^^
                      Many webmasters still have not read RFC 4646 :-(

> let me know what do you think about it :-)

Any translation in my own language? For english, Google suggests:

IPv4 depletion clock 2.0

Empty circumstance of the IPv4 address space which IANA has managed
and remaining days to depletion expectation day, it can look through
the IPv4 address (presumption) and the like at present time.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:58:58 -0400

courtesy of google translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fjp%2Fdownloads%2Fdashboard%2Fnetworking_security%2Fipv420.html+&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Marc Manthey wrote:
> well, i could imagine what its good  for , but an english version would
> be appreciated ;)

---

From: Ruri Hiromi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:12 +0900

dedicate to ostriches...

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:00:36 -0400

If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks that 
should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the public 
Internet address space.

At 6:56 -0400 2007/10/03, Ray Plzak wrote:
>Brian,
>
>My comment was regarding a head in the sand approach when it comes 
>to the recurring themes that the developing world can't IP address 
>space, whether it is v4 or v6. The fact is that they can get it from 
>the RIR like those in the developed regions can get it from their 
>RIRs. The real problem, in other words, putting head in sand, is to 
>substitute this address space access issue for the real one of what 
>can the recipients of the address space do with it when they get, 
>particularly if they have no hardware to run it on, no electricity 
>to power it, and no upstream willing to route it. It is those issues 
>that need to be hit head on if the Internet is to really grow in the 
>developing regions of the globe.
>
>Ray
>
>>  >> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[email-masked] [email-masked] Wed Oct 03 09:13:58 2007
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:00:36 -0400
To: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks that 
should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the public 
Internet address space.

At 6:56 -0400 2007/10/03, Ray Plzak wrote:
>Brian,
>
>My comment was regarding a head in the sand approach when it comes 
>to the recurring themes that the developing world can't IP address 
>space, whether it is v4 or v6. The fact is that they can get it from 
>the RIR like those in the developed regions can get it from their 
>RIRs. The real problem, in other words, putting head in sand, is to 
>substitute this address space access issue for the real one of what 
>can the recipients of the address space do with it when they get, 
>particularly if they have no hardware to run it on, no electricity 
>to power it, and no upstream willing to route it. It is those issues 
>that need to be hit head on if the Internet is to really grow in the 
>developing regions of the globe.
>
>Ray
>

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT)

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT)

It actually IS English, try installing, it localizes.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Marc Manthey wrote:

> well, i could imagine what its good  for , but an english version would be
> appreciated ;)
> 
> cheers
> 
> Marc
> 
> --
> Marc Manthey -

1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

It actually IS English, try installing, it localizes.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Marc Manthey wrote:

> well, i could imagine what its good  for , but an english version would be
> appreciated ;)
> 
> cheers
> 
> Marc
> 
> --
> Marc Manthey -

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 22:02:36 +0900 (JST)

> well, i could imagine what its good  for , but an english version  

	the widget itself is bilingual (english/japanese).

itojun

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:00:33 -0500

Thus spake "John Day" <[email-masked]>
> If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks
> that should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the
> public Internet address space.

AFAIK, IANA does not have any reclamation procedures, nor have any every 
been assumed to exist.  In any event, the legacy assignments were 
transferred to their respective RIRs during the ERX process, so it's the 
RIRs' problem now.

I don't know what has been going on in the other RIRs, but in ARIN it's been 
(heatedly) discussed many times what to do with legacy assignments.  Counsel 
recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that ARIN has any legal 
obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments, though it 
does have a moral one since that was a condition of ARIN's creation. 
Counsel also stated, however, it is unclear that ARIN could assign those 
same numbers to someone else later.  There's quite a bit of history there, 
including the possibility that assignments made during the ARPAnet days 
(particularly to universities and defense contractors) were "Government 
Furnished Equipment" and thus only the government can take them back. 
There's a counter-theory that numbers cannot be property at all and ARIN can 
do whatever it wants.  Nobody's really sure, least of all the lawyers who'd 
inevitably be arguing the issue in court when one (or more likely all) of 
those /8 holders sued ARIN for trying to reclaim them.  It doesn't matter 
who's right in the end; ARIN would be bankrupted just trying to defend 
itself against several dozen Fortune 100 companies' legal departments...

We're working on poFrom [email-masked] Wed Oct 03 20:30:26 2007
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Day" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:00:33 -0500
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

Thus spake "John Day" <[email-masked]>
> If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks
> that should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the
> public Internet address space.

AFAIK, IANA does not have any reclamation procedures, nor have any every 
been assumed to exist.  In any event, the legacy assignments were 
transferred to their respective RIRs during the ERX process, so it's the 
RIRs' problem now.

I don't know what has been going on in the other RIRs, but in ARIN it's been 
(heatedly) discussed many times what to do with legacy assignments.  Counsel 
recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that ARIN has any legal 
obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments, though it 
does have a moral one since that was a condition of ARIN's creation. 
Counsel also stated, however, it is unclear that ARIN could assign those 
same numbers to someone else later.  There's quite a bit of history there, 
including the possibility that assignments made during the ARPAnet days 
(particularly to universities and defense contractors) were "Government 
Furnished Equipment" and thus only the government can take them back. 
There's a counter-theory that numbers cannot be property at all and ARIN can 
do whatever it wants.  Nobody's really sure, least of all the lawyers who'd 
inevitably be arguing the issue in court when one (or more likely all) of 
those /8 holders sued ARIN for trying to reclaim them.  It doesn't matter 
who's right in the end; ARIN would be bankrupted just trying to defend 
itself against several dozen Fortune 100 companies' legal departments...

We're working on policy proposals to address the issue the best we can, 
though, and if you wish to contribute please subscribe to PPML (and read the 
archives to get up to speed).

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

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:05:53 -0700

John,

Which would those be?

Thanks,
-drc

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:36:07 -0700

> Ruri Hiromi wrote:
http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ipv420.h
tml

Each time I see one of these "days remaining before Armaggedon"
counters, I can't help but remember what happened on January 1, 2000:
nothing.

Michel.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:50:22 -0400

> counters, I can't help but remember what happened on January 1, 2000:
yes, but that's because people heeded the warnings, and prepared.  if
the same thing happens wrt IPv4 exhaustion, that will be fabulous.

---

From: Artur Hecker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:20:02 +0200

Hi

On 4 Oct 2007, at 19:50, Keith Moore wrote:

>> ipv420.h

No doubt - that nicely paid off our profession so we should not  
complain :-)

However, that's an intriguing discussion because I almost as often  
hear quite the contrary argument: indeed, given billions of USD and  
EUR spent on that issue, one could reasonably argue that the issue  
was overblown and ask to which degree this statement is true and what  
would have actually happened without all the pressure.

So far, I could not find anything really useful on that (proofs?) but  
keep on hearing very opposite positions, but it's maybe just me?

Does anybody have any established and sustained opinion on that and  
could provide verifiable if not objective data? How many critical  
bugs were really found in typical systems? What would have been the  
real impact? What could have happenned in terms of impact (meaning:  
it would definitely have happened, not the what-if analysis)? Was the  
cost higher than the estimated risk?

thanks for any pointers
artur

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:44:40 -0400

> EUR spent on that issue, one could reasonably argue that the issue was
> overblown and ask to which degree this statement is true and what
> could provide verifiable if not objective data? How many critical bugs
> were really found in typical systems? What would have been the real
> impact? What could have happenned in terms of impact (meaning: it
> would definitely have happened, not the what-if analysis)? Was the
Well, presumably most of that money was spent on detailed analysis
rather than on bug fixes.   But I haven't heard of any significant
effort to collect data on how many bugs were found or what there impact
would have been had they not been fixed prior to y2k.   And it's not
clear how much value there would be in such an effort, because we're not
going to run into another y2k like situation for at least 93 more
years.  (Okay, maybe in 2038 when the number of seconds after the UNIX
epoch rolls past a 32-bit number).   It would be hard to apply any
lessons learned from y2k to the exhaustion of IPv4, because they're
similar only in a very superficial way.

Keith

p.s. also, my impression is that a lot of businesses used the y2k as an
excuse to replace old, crufty software with newer software (presumably
with newer cruft), which might have produced benefits other than y2k
resilience.  so a cost-vs-benefit analysis would need to consider this.

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:35:47 -0700

In the 1980s I worked on a chemical plant manufacturing chlorine and CFCs. In the corner of the site there was a plant that had been constructed but never put into production.

The plant had been built to make a CFC substitute product when the Ozone layer issue had first been raised but never went into production as it was subsequently proved that the ozone layer fears had been greatly exagerated and that it would be centuries or more before the significant depletion would take effect.

Today of course we have a massive hole in the ozone layer and the role of CFCs is beyond serious dispute. More than half the CFCs that are circulating in the upper atmosphere today were manufactured after we had the technology to avoid the problem.

So yes, Homo Sapiens is entirely capable of turning avoidable disaster into disaster through inaction.

> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:50 PM
> To: Michel Py
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> yes, but that's because people heeded the warnings, and 
> prepared.  if the same thing happens wrt IPv4 exhaustion, 
> that will be fabulous.
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:19:59 -0700

The Y2K issue was almost certainly overblown, but it is important to understand the reasons as they do not apply in the IPv4 case.

The reason Y2K gained so much attention was that there was almost perfect alignment between the party able to fix the problem and the party able to cause the fix to be implemented. 

The issue began as many companies recognised that if they did not spend money to avert the Y2K problem that they would be the ones to suffer the loss.

If this was the only dynamic Y2K would have received more or less the attention it deserved. Instead the problem was compounded by a couple of additional factors.

The first was the Y2K vampire who consultant-like turned every victim into a new source of infection. The first thing a Y2K vampire would do on claiming a new victim was to send out letters to every supplier demanding to know if their systems have passed a Y2K audit. Thus the poison spread at exponential speed. 

Knowing that your company stands to lose $1 million if there is a Y2k issue might cause you to spend $750k to avoid it. Having your hundred or so customers demand to know if you are Y2K compliant puts your entire company revenues at risk. 

The second part to the dynamic was that all contrarian voices (including my own) were suppressed. The only Y2K stories that could be printed in advance described the impending catastrophe. Folk like myself who were skeptical were not going to be covered - even when we were pointing out blatantly obvious points such as the fact that we should not be overly concerned about the threat of Y2k in third world countries where the power, telephone etc infrastructure are unreliable in any case and one particular outage is not an issue.

The only Y2K issue I am aware of is one that was paradoxically caused by a Y2K concern. One of the oldest X.509 roots expired on Dec 31 1999. The date had been chosen precisely because of Y2K concerns, the fix to the specification had not yet been ratified as a standard. At the time the root was created nobody had anticipated that the level of Y2K paranoia would make that date a bad choice of day for a cert to expire.

So how does this all relate to IPv4/6? It does not. The problem with the IPv6 transition is that the cost and benefit are completely out of phase. The cost falls on those who have IPv4 addresses, the benefits acrue only to those who do not. If you have an IPv4 address the fact that others do not is not going to make a huge difference to the benefit you get from the network. 

Metcalf's law is overstated, the value of a network to an individual user is at best proportional to its size. In practice the Blockbuster effect means that there are diminishing returns. A network of four billion plus one users is worth more or less the same to me as a user as a network of four billion. The fact that there could be one more user is not something that would greatly encourage me to upgrade my kit. At best the value of the network to existing users is going to be the log of the number of users. 

Looking back at my personal use of networks I can certainly agree that the number of users increases the value. I have seen the Web grow from 100 users to a billion. The value has not increased at anything like the same rate. The Web is certainly more useful today than in 2000 or 1995 or 1992 but the increase in value has been linear, not exponential. The Web does not help me to find ten million times more useful information today than it did in 1992.

So the idea that we can rely on the Internet haves to invest money to benefit the Internet have-nots on the scale necessary is unfortunately misguided. 

I do think that we can make the IPv6 transition work. I do not think that we can just expect it to happen and for everything to turn out just right. Or that merely convincing people that there is going to be a problem will result in a solution.

We have to think like marketting people.

> From: Artur Hecker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 2:20 PM
> To: IETF Discussion
> prepared.  if 
> No doubt - that nicely paid off our profession so we should 
> not complain :-)
> 
> However, that's an intriguing discussion because I almost as 
> often hear quite the contrary argument: indeed, given 
> billions of USD and EUR spent on that issue, one could 
> reasonably argue that the issue was overblown and ask to 
> which degree this statement is true and what would have 
> actually happened without all the pressure.
> 
> So far, I could not find anything really useful on that 
> (proofs?) but keep on hearing very opposite positions, but 
> it's maybe just me?
> 
> Does anybody have any established and sustained opinion on 
> that and could provide verifiable if not objective data? How 
> many critical bugs were really found in typical systems? What 
> would have been the real impact? What could have happenned in 
> terms of impact (meaning:  
> it would definitely have happened, not the what-if analysis)? 
> Was the cost higher than the estimated risk?
> 
> 
> thanks for any pointers
> artur
>

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked] | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 1.17% | 10096 | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 1.14% | 9853 | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 1.12% | 9733 | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 1.10% | 9532 | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 1.06% | 9198 | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 1.05% | 9098 | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 0.95% | 8231 | [email-masked] 1.34% | 2 | 0.92% | 8004 | [email-masked] 0.67% | 1 | 1.19% | 10320 | [email-masked] 0.67% | 1 | 1.05% | 9067 | [email-masked] 0.67% | 1 | 0.90% | 7816 | [email-masked] 0.67% | 1 | 0.82% | 71
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:38:59 -0700

--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  149 |100.00% |   865418 | Total

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:38:59 -0700

>>> Michel Py wrote:
>>> Each time I see one of these "days remaining before
>>> Armageddon" counters, I can't help but remember what
>>> happened on January 1, 2000: nothing.

>> the same thing happens wrt IPv4 exhaustion, that will be fabulous.

FUD. Nothing is going to happen the day the last v4 block is allocated.
Nothing is going to happen for days. Nothing is going to happen for
weeks. Nothing is going to happen for months.

Contrary to Y2K, when it was conceivable (and did happen, at a very
small scale) that something would crash because a counter rolled to "00"
because the software written 20 years before did not plan for it, what
will happen the day IPv4 is exhausted is zip, nada, nothing. Some
obscure player will not get addresses, the business will go instead to
an established player who has feasted on IPv4 for years and has built
both fat and a respectable stockpile in their cellar, and the world will
continue to spin.

> Artur Hecker wrote:
> No doubt - that nicely paid off our profession so
> we should not > complain :-)

:-D

> indeed, given billions of USD and EUR spent on that issue, one
> could reasonably argue that the issue was overblown and ask to
> which degree this statement is true and what would have actually
> happened without all the pressure.

Indeed. I mostly agree with the Phillip Hallam-Baker's post later on.

> Does anybody have any established and sustained opinion on that
> and could provide verifiable if not objective data? How many
> critical bugs were really found in typical systems?

We will never know that. There were scores of people who billed tons of
money to take care of it; you don't expect that they will admit to
spending all this time finding nothing, would you? But on the other end,
most of the Y2K audit teams were internal so they kept their dirty
laundry in the family.
In the end, it does not matter. Y2K was about compliance, and compliance
is about making sure it fits the requirements checklist, which means
it's defendable in court, and does not mean it actually works.

> What would have been the real impact? What could have
> happened in terms of impact (meaning: it would definitely
> have happened, not the what-if analysis)?

Nobody will ever know that either. What could have happened if the
dinosaurs were not extinct? What could have happened if we did not drop
a nuke on Japan to end the war? What could have happened if the Germans
got a nuke before we did? What could have happened if the soviets beat
us to the moon? What could have happened if John Kennedy was not
assassinated? What could have happened if the telephone was not
invented?

> Was the cost higher than the estimated risk?

Nobody will ever know that either, but one thing is sure: it would have
been a lot cheaper without the legal liability buffalo dung that was
associated with it.

> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The first was the Y2K vampire who consultant-like turned every victim
> into a new source of infection. The first thing a Y2K vampire would do
> on claiming a new victim was to send out letters to every supplier
> demanding to know if their systems have passed a Y2K audit. Thus the
> poison spread at exponential speed.

This is no different than a pyramid scheme or a virus: the only way out
is full speed ahead and hope that you will not be part of the
casualties.

> We have to think like maramento.ca.us>
To: "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

>>> Michel Py wrote:
>>> Each time I see one of these "days remaining before
>>> Armageddon" counters, I can't help but remember what
>>> happened on January 1, 2000: nothing.

>> the same thing happens wrt IPv4 exhaustion, that will be fabulous.

FUD. Nothing is going to happen the day the last v4 block is allocated.
Nothing is going to happen for days. Nothing is going to happen for
weeks. Nothing is going to happen for months.

Contrary to Y2K, when it was conceivable (and did happen, at a very
small scale) that something would crash because a counter rolled to "00"
because the software written 20 years before did not plan for it, what
will happen the day IPv4 is exhausted is zip, nada, nothing. Some
obscure player will not get addresses, the business will go instead to
an established player who has feasted on IPv4 for years and has built
both fat and a respectable stockpile in their cellar, and the world will
continue to spin.

> Artur Hecker wrote:
> No doubt - that nicely paid off our profession so
> we should not > complain :-)

:-D

> indeed, given billions of USD and EUR spent on that issue, one
> could reasonably argue that the issue was overblown and ask to
> which degree this statement is true and what would have actually
> happened without all the pressure.

Indeed. I mostly agree with the Phillip Hallam-Baker's post later on.

> Does anybody have any established and sustained opinion on that
> and could provide verifiable if not objective data? How many
> critical bugs were really found in typical systems?

We will never know that. There were scores of people who billed tons of
money to take care of it; you don't expect that they will admit to
spending all this time finding nothing, would you? But on the other end,
most of the Y2K audit teams were internal so they kept their dirty
laundry in the family.
In the end, it does not matter. Y2K was about compliance, and compliance
is about making sure it fits the requirements checklist, which means
it's defendable in court, and does not mean it actually works.

> What would have been the real impact? What could have
> happened in terms of impact (meaning: it would definitely
> have happened, not the what-if analysis)?

Nobody will ever know that either. What could have happened if the
dinosaurs were not extinct? What could have happened if we did not drop
a nuke on Japan to end the war? What could have happened if the Germans
got a nuke before we did? What could have happened if the soviets beat
us to the moon? What could have happened if John Kennedy was not
assassinated? What could have happened if the telephone was not
invented?

> Was the cost higher than the estimated risk?

Nobody will ever know that either, but one thing is sure: it would have
been a lot cheaper without the legal liability buffalo dung that was
associated with it.

> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The first was the Y2K vampire who consultant-like turned every victim
> into a new source of infection. The first thing a Y2K vampire would do
> on claiming a new victim was to send out letters to every supplier
> demanding to know if their systems have passed a Y2K audit. Thus the
> poison spread at exponential speed.

This is no different than a pyramid scheme or a virus: the only way out
is full speed ahead and hope that you will not be part of the
casualties.

> We have to think like marketting people.

Phillip, although I agree with the rest of your post, I am not sure
about this part. One of the IPv6 problems is that it was sold by
marketing before engineers could actually make it work. Remember all
these miraculous features: small DFZ, easy renumbering, etc? Tell me
where these features are today besides the imagination of
marketing-minded people who sold them before making sure that they could
actually be delivered.

Two things happened along the road: First, as you have explained, people
realized that the Y2K FUD was overblown and are not willing to spend the
same money on IPv6. Second, the dot-com bubble burst, and the IPv6
forklift upgrade that could have been financed by all this capital money
pouring from the sky did not take off.

IPv6: sold by marketing before the concept was even proven. Designed by
protocol purity zealots who can't make it cheap enough to be
economically deployable. It reminds me of the Concorde supersonic
aircraft: it could have been a success if the supersonic boom could be
suppressed and if the price of oil did not skyrocket. A few were built
and were operated with much hype on a confidential scale for many years.
Where can you see one today? In a museum.

Michel.

ketting people.

Phillip, although I agree with the rest of your post, I am not sure
about this part. One of the IPv6 problems is that it was sold by
marketing before engineers could actually make it work. Remember all
these miraculous features: small DFZ, easy renumbering, etc? Tell me
where these features are today besides the imagination of
marketing-minded people who sold them before making sure that they could
actually be delivered.

Two things happened along the road: First, as you have explained, people
realized that the Y2K FUD was overblown and are not willing to spend the
same money on IPv6. Second, the dot-com bubble burst, and the IPv6
forklift upgrade that could have been financed by all this capital money
pouring from the sky did not take off.

IPv6: sold by marketing before the concept was even proven. Designed by
protocol purity zealots who can't make it cheap enough to be
economically deployable. It reminds me of the Concorde supersonic
aircraft: it could have been a success if the supersonic boom could be
suppressed and if the price of oil did not skyrocket. A few were built
and were operated with much hype on a confidential scale for many years.
Where can you see one today? In a museum.

Michel.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:45:28 +0200

On 5-okt-2007, at 6:38, Michel Py wrote:

> Nothing is going to happen the day the last v4 block is allocated.
> weeks.

Sure.

> Nothing is going to happen for months.

Not so sure. The big ISPs that work in blocks of a million or so  
addresses will be the first ones to see their requests turned down  
because addresses are out of stock. Presumably, they'll need those  
addresses to connect new customers. If you happen to request a new  
connection around that time you'll see an effect.

> spending all this time finding nothing, would you?

I think some pretty much have.

I'm sure that if the Y2K issue had been ignored there'd been lots of  
problems with individual systems. The part that was unlikely (but not  
impossible) from the beginning were all the domino effects. A router  
won't stop routing if it is set to the wrong time of day. I'm pretty  
sure a plane won't stop flying, either. But in that particular case,  
"pretty sure" is not exactly good enough...

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 08:30:50 +1000

> "pretty sure" is not exactly good enough...

	There have been fighter jets that couldn't cross the date
	line as the navigation computers crashes/gave wrong readings.
	The pilots that discovered this had to be escorted back by
	other aircraft with working navigation.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:00:50 -0700

> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Not so sure. The big ISPs that work in blocks of a million or
> so addresses will be the first ones to see their requests turned
> down because addresses are out of stock. Presumably, they'll need
> those addresses to connect new customers. If you happen to request
> a new connection around that time you'll see an effect.

Then they can begin to reclaim the waste in their own backyard.

I know first hand scores of customers who:
- Have been allocated a block of addresses and NAT out of the /30 of the
T1 link. The blocks can be reclaimed easily.
- Have been allocated a /28 without asking for it and all they use is a
single IP.

During the good old ipv6mh days, we could have hoped that IPv6 would be
deployed in time; this is no longer the case.

Think about the following: even if in 3 years 50% of hosts were
IPv6-only capable, it would not diminish the need for IPv4. All the
double-NAT tricks, unused address reclaim, config cleanup etc are going
to happen now no matter what. I'm not saying it's going to be easy or
cheap, but as long as there is a need for v4 it will happen.

The unanswered question is: are all these tricks going to be enough to
keep operating IPv4. Nobody knows, but almost everyone who already has a
v4 address can wait. I am sad so read Y2K-like FUD and counters.

The name of the game is: wait, see how much it hurts, and do something
about it when the pain becomes unbearable. Most people will try vicodin
before opting for the surgery, especially when dealing with a disease
that has not killed anyone yet. You can't change that.

Michel.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 16:06:05 +0200

> v4 address can wait.

Well, if in the forseeable future (3 years is a bit short, though)  
50% of all hosts has IPv6 connectivity, I would call that a  
resounding success. (I'll even take 25 or even 10 % or whatever is  
enough to make most ISPs deploy IPv6 in their networks.) That the  
other 50/75/90% is still IPv6-only wouldn't be a problem: presumably,  
IPv4 works for them so there is no need to add IPv6.

The tricky part is what happens to people that run into limitations  
that exist in IPv4 but not in IPv6. (NAT, hard to get enough  
addresses, that kind of stuff.) So far, deploying IPv6 to work around  
these problems has rarely been a workable option. But hopefully, it  
will become one in the next few years.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 23:57:26 -0700

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The unanswered question is: are all these tricks going to be
>> enough to keep operating IPv4. Nobody knows, but almost
>> everyone who already has a v4 address can wait.

> Well, if in the forseeable future (3 years is a bit short,
> though) 50% of all hosts has IPv6 connectivity, I would call
> that a resounding success.

Me too, that's why I used "even if". I am glad you have come to
admitting this publicly. Given some private email I have received
yesterday, it appears that some of the most active participants in the
IETF (and/or this mailing list) have been shocked to hear that, as of
yesterday night, less than 50% of all hosts did not have IPv6
connectivity yet.
Well, M$ will eventually fix Vista and it will eventually become
popular; nothing to worry about :-D

> (I'll even take 25 or even 10 % or whatever is enough to make most
> ISPs deploy IPv6 in their networks.)

That percentage is a heck of an interesting speculation, and I would not
dare no bet anything more than a beer on it. More on this below.

> That the other 50/75/90% is still IPv6-only wouldn't be a problem:
> presumably, IPv4 works for them so there is no need to add IPv6.

I presume you meant "the other 50/75/90% is still IPv4-only"
                                                     ^
That's the real deal: if 90% of hosts don't need IPv6, it never takes
off. This is hardly a new notion, but there is such thing as a critical
mass.

> The tricky part is what happens to people that run into
> limitations that exist in IPv4 but not in IPv6. (NAT, hard
> to get enough addresses, that kind of stuff.) So far, deploying
> IPv6 to work around these problems has rarely been a workable
> option. But hopefully, it will become one in the next few years.

Iljitsch, I like your eternal optimism but please face reality: despite
being evil, NAT is a feature that IPv6 does not have (yet?), and for
anyone who can read this today, "hard to get enough addresses" is a red
herring.

I just [forklift] upgraded one of my old small customers; they are 100%
IPv6 capable and 90% IPv6 configured (Vista on every desktop, Server
2003 SP1 x64, Exchange 2007, IOS 12.4). They have a /28 from {major ISP,
name withheld to protect the guilty and accessorily save my @55} which I
did not ask for; all I use is a single IP. The next thing I foresee
coming from {major ISP} is to change that /28 into a single static IP.
For the next 5 years I still don't have a single reason to upgrade.

<flame bait>
While you're at it, explain me something else: I'm a fat ignorant dumb
lazy American imperialist. Why should I bother if, in 5 years, someone
in a country that I have not heard the name yet has to sub their
Internet connectivity to an American company {which I, ahem, happen to
own shares of} instead of getting their own PI?
</flame bait>

Michel.