Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Int-area] draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues (OPSAREA WG)

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:57:33 +0100

Hi Leo,

On 30/09/2009 19:28, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 25/09/2009 6:45, "Matthew Ford"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Section 3 - Where are these residential and corporate networks where
>> 'peer to peer communication is not needed'?
>
> It is not uncommon for some network operators to restrict the use of
> peer-to-peer technologies either within their own network or across its
> borders. In enterprises this is sometimes part of a security policy. For
> instance some financial companies are required to record all incoming and
> outgoing voice calls and so disallow peer-to-peer VoIP services.
>
> In ISP networks there is sometimes a policy or technology that restricts
> peer-to-peer technologies, whether for revenue protection reasons or
> otherwise, forcing most IP traffic via proxies and caches. One example of
> this is the image compression used by many cellular data networks.

Understood. So I think this text should be clarified, perhaps as follows:

Replace

'For instance, it is often technically feasible to use NAT or even 
multiple layers of NAT within the networks operated by residential users 
or corporations where peer to peer communication is not needed.'

with

'For instance, it is often technically feasible to use NAT or even 
multiple layers of NAT within networks where peer-to-peer technologies 
are prohibited by fiat and where users cannot expect to use any 
unsupported services or applications.'

>> Section 5.2 - I'm struggling to understand why it's 'likely' that there
>> will be networks consuming whole /8s in 12 month periods for private
>> addressing purposes. If there were networks with that much need for
>> private addressing, we'd have been hearing complaints about how net10 is
>> too small way before now, right?
>
> We have both spoken to network operators who know that they have a need for
> very large amounts of address space over short time frames but are sitting
> on the requests for as long as possible. That being said, it is not unknown
> for networks to be allocated whole /8s in one go. For instance, APNIC
> allocated 126.0.0.0/8 to Softbank.

That was nearly five years ago. Have Softbank asked for more since? The 
text currently says it is 'likely' that there will be networks consuming 
whole /8s for private addressing in a 12 month period.

I'd replace

'It is possible and even likely that a single
    network could consume a whole IPv4 /8 in a year. '

with

'Very large networks could consume multiple IPv4 /8s over time.'

> Another example of a statement of need is the recent (now abandoned) APNIC
> policy proposal (prop-058-v001) "Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address
> space among LIRs".
>
>> This wording in section 4.1 on solving the problem with IPv6 is rather coy:
>>      "In some cases implementing a new network protocol on a very large
>> network takes more time than is available, based on network growth and
>> the proportion of private space that has already been used.  In these
>> cases, there is a call for additional private address space that can be
>> shared by all network operators."
>>
>> Let's be clear about this:
>>
>> 'Some network operators are complaining today that they do not have time
>> to implement IPv6 on their network before they run out of private space.
>> These operators are calling for additional private address space to be
>> made available...'
>
> We could change the wording to something more direct but I would personally
> prefer not to use the word "complaining" as I don't think I have heard any
> complaints, just proposals and concerns.

That's fair. How about

'Some network operators are concerned that they do not have sufficient 
time to implement IPv6 on their network before they run out of private 
space. These operators are calling for additional private address space 
to be made available...'

Mat

---

From: Leo Vegoda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:35:45 -0700

Dear Mat,

Thank you very much for your comments. We think they fall into two
categories: the tone of the language used and the likelihood of an ISP to
need a whole /8 in a very short period.

On the first point, we think we should try to keep the language
dispassionate. Phrases like "prohibited by fiat" carry some emotional
baggage with them and might be seen as a judgment on whether the network
operator's policy is appropriate. As authors, we don't want to take a
position on whether a policy is appropriate or not; we want to document that
these policies exist.

On the second issue, the point we are trying to document is the possibility
that large networks may grow at a rate and to a level where they are unable
to use private address space for large parts of their network and so have to
use unique addresses. This statement is based on conversations with the
network architects at several of the largest consumer ISPs. Also, we need to
bear in mind that after one of these very large ISPs has had to move to
unique addresses for part of their network, there is a competitive pressure
on other ISPs to do the same.

We hope these explanations make our reasoning clear.

Kind regards,

Marla & Leo

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:41:12 +0100

Hi Leo,

> position on whether a policy is appropriate or not; we want to document that

Actually, I don't read any emotion into that phrase, but if you don't 
like it, just drop the 'by fiat'.

> on other ISPs to do the same.

I don't think the replacement text I'm suggesting is at odds with that - 
I'm simply trying to have the text reflect what you're explaining to be 
your meaning.

> We hope these explanations make our reasoning clear.

Yes, they do, thanks. I guess as I'm wordsmithing already, that means 
I'd like to see this adopted by the WG :)

Mat

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marla&  Leo
>
>
>
> On 08/10/2009 2:57, "Matthew Ford"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Leo,
>>