Subject: [v4v6interim] Can we squeeze a tiny topic in the agenda?

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:41:57 +0200

Colleagues,

I know the agenda is already very full, but I wonder if we could squeeze
a small topic.

Coming from the RIR side I'd like to bring up an issue of usability of
the former class E space (240/4). I know many are sceptical about this,
but I am not aware of any more or less comprehensive usability tests.
I'd like to discuss the feasibility of such experiment.

I think this is relevant to this meeting, because if usable this space
could be a very good candidate for some of the translation proposals
being discussed here.

It's only a few slides.

Thanks,

Andrei Robachevsky
RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

---

From: "Turchanyi Geza" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:27:52 +0200

Andrei and all,

even the authors of the draft-wilson had been sceptical, however, you
are absolutely right that extensive tests and analyses might better
clarify the topic.

Thanks,

         Geza

PS. Unfortunately I can not participate at the interim meeting as I am
at the Networks2008 Conference at Budapest, speaking about the
IPv4->IPv6 transition ;-)

---

From: "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:41:36 +0300

> I'd like to discuss the feasibility of such experiment.

Linux (until very recently) and Windows 2000/XP will refuse to send any 
traffic to an address in that range. Also last time I checked, the *BSD 
kernel routing would discard these destinations, such that you cannot cross a 
BSD-based router, although BSD "network leaves" can apparently use them 
(should include OSX). Symbian seems to accept it (not well tested).
Haven't checked Windows Vista and 9x, nor big routers.

I think it's fair to say that this range is NOT usable with legacy nodes. I 
suspect the only place you might seriously be able to use it, is between two 
NATs in the double NAT deployment, and even then I'm suspicious.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Maemo Software, Nokia Devices R&D
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:55:49 +1000

> NATs in the double NAT deployment, and even then I'm suspicious.

I refer you to section 3 of draft-fuller-240space-02.txt for a summary  
of the level of support for use of this addresses in hosts as of March  
2008  (its an expired draft -  http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-fuller-240space/index.html 
  holds a copy)

   Geoff

---

From: "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:10:33 +0300

On Monday 29 September 2008 11:55:49 ext Geoff Huston, you wrote:
> > On Monday 29 September 2008 10:41:57 ext Andrei Robachevsky, you
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Colleagues,
> >>
> 2008  (its an expired draft - 
> http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-fuller-240space/index.html holds
> a copy)

And what about routers? Also, I could not find the paragraph explaining the 
plan to upgrade all those hundreds of millions nodes, including _routers_ 
that did not support 240/4 as yet.

I thought the assumption in v4v6 was that IPv4 nodes could not be updated...? 
Just as an example my home NAT-router is still running Linux 2.4.30, and 
that's after I upgraded the firmware - something normal people don't do.

Yes 240/4 could be used in some specific scenarii involving some control over 
all deployed nodes, or on some greenfield network (WiMAX?). Not on the IPv4 
Internet.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:18:31 +0300

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Rémi 
>Denis-Courmont
>Sent: 29 September, 2008 12:11
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] Can we squeeze a tiny topic in the agenda?

>I thought the assumption in v4v6 was that IPv4 nodes could not be updated...? 

I would believe new IPv4 nodes could contain new IPv4-side features as well (as those nodes can be updated to support IPv6 for that matter), and some - not all - of the legacy nodes could be upgraded as well. 

>Yes 240/4 could be used in some specific scenarii involving 
>some control over all deployed nodes, or on some greenfield 
>network (WiMAX?). Not on the IPv4 Internet.

I agree, in this document I'm proposing how this could be arranged in such scenarios (which while specific scenarios, may contain large number of nodes): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savolainen-indicating-240-addresses-00.txt

Best regards,
	
	Teemu

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:08:27 +0200

Coming from RIPE, I'd like to know if you have seen this draft, and what 
you think of the idea.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-00.txt

This draft plainly argues against using 240/4 (on the basis that it is 
already too "polluted" in IP stacks today), and instead asks IANA to set 
aside some new space for SPs to "share" within NAT zones or walled gardens.

But aside of whether 240/4 is used or not, I'd like to know if the 
community believes we need to define some IPv4 "SP Private" space 
(presumably to sit between two NATs, or to communicate to devices within 
an SP walled-garden). If we as a community decide that this kind of SP 
space is needed, we are effectively defining a new scope that is 
different from RFC1918 scope and global scope. As such, our evaluation 
criteria for how 240/4 could be used changes by default - as we have a 
new type of scope to consider.

I don't think this is a tiny topic, but it is one that could become an 
elephant in the room if we don't put it on the table and discuss it a 
bit. I think it at least falls under the "SP's running out of RFC1918 
space" problem space scenario, and how to deploy NAT444 CGNs in the 
solution space.

Thanks,

- Mark

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:38:13 -0400

On 9/29/08 8:08 AM, "Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think it at least falls under the "SP's running out of RFC1918

I have heard this 240/3 argument as a good fit for large operators many
times now. To this, I have to say, thanks, but no thanks.

One can make an experiment it his basement and make this to work. This is
very different from running a production network. The cost is not just
getting the code, but certifying that everything will work: routers of any
kind, of any generation, with any line card combination, firewalls,
provisioning systems, network management systems, etc... The list is very
long, and until all those pieces are *proven* to work, 240/3 is not
deployable in such a network. The scope of such certification is in the same
order of magnitude as doing it for IPv6.

  - Alain.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:39 +0100

On 29 sep 2008, at 13:08, Mark Townsley wrote:

> asks IANA to set aside some new space for SPs to "share" within NAT  
> zones or walled gardens.

> (presumably to sit between two NATs, or to communicate to devices  
> within an SP walled-garden). If we as a community decide that this  
> kind of SP space is needed, we are effectively defining a new scope  
> that is different from RFC1918 scope and global scope.

First of all: aren't we getting pretty far away from the "v4v6" part  
of our effort with this kind of stuff? But apparently there's lots of  
interest, maybe someone should organize something for v4v4.

SP-scope addresses would be useful for service providers who want to  
do stuff in private space as their users will already have all RFC  
1918 prefixes in use. This is good if they want to do double NAT which  
IMO is a good reason to NOT give this out but I guess I'll be in the  
minority there. Anyone know how much address space we're talking  
about? A /22 or so would seem more than sufficient.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:19:21 -0400

I don't think it is a good idea to add this to the interim agenda for  
several reasons:

(1) This isn't really a small topic.  Previous discussions of this  
issue have involved strongly held opinions on both sides, and it is  
unlikely that this could be resolved quickly.

(2) This topic isn't specific to v4v6 transition.  Some people who are  
interested in this topic may not be at the interim meeting, and  
probably wouldn't know that this was going to be discussed there.

(3) It doesn't seem that this topic is so urgent that it couldn't wait  
until the next IETF meeting in Minneapolis, where it could be  
discussed in a more open forum.

So, I'd recommend against adding it here.

Margaret

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:54:29 +0200

Although the subject is clearly important, I am concerned that it might 
end up taking too much time in a meeting that has already a lot urgent 
matter to deal with.

I therefore support that its discussion be left for Minneapolis.

RD

Margaret Wasserman   (m/j/a) 9/29/08 4:19 PM:
> (1) This isn't really a small topic.  Previous discussions of this issue 
> have involved strongly held opinions on both sides, and it is unlikely 
> that this could be resolved quickly.
> 
> interested in this topic may not be at the interim meeting, and probably 
> wouldn't know that this was going to be discussed there.
> 
> until the next IETF meeting in Minneapolis, where it could be discussed 
> in a more open forum.
>

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:48:34 +0200

Fair enough and thanks to everyone for the feedback.

I was more looking at the feasibility of the experiment and its content.
If people think writing up a short draft outlining the goals and the
experiment itself is a good idea, I appreciate your feedback and
specific ideas. We can also talk about this informally in Montreal.

Andrei

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:50:53 +1300

On 2008-09-30 01:08, Mark Townsley wrote:
> an SP walled-garden). 

I believe SP Private space should be considered harmful. It would
incent SPs to delay active encouragement of their users to deploy
IPv6, and it would make it easier to build walled gardens. Since
our job is to make the Internet work better, both of these results
would be bad.

    Brian

---

From: Hiroshi MIYATA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 06:50:22 +0900

sNAT approach seems good since it does not consume additional
IPv4 address.

On the other hand, it require ISP to changes the infrastructure.

So, it is trade off.

....miyata

On 2008/09/30, at 5:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> within