Subject: Re: [[email-masked]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:07:26 +0200

On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> 60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI.  6 voted against.

Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.

Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own  
paycheck get to blow up the internet.

Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in playground  
democracy has to end before people get hurt.

---

From: "James Jun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:09:21 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: Scott Leibrand
> Cc: Jason [email-masked]; Joe Abley; shim6-wg; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; IETF Discussion; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [[email-masked]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
> 

How about you start operating a real network and feel the pain of your
enterprise customers who require usability?  IPv6 is a failure because of
ongoing FUD regarding so called 'routing table explosion' that even IPv4 is
still susceptible to, and all this "ipv6 will even wash your dishes!" claims
having no ROI.  I was hoping for people to stop preaching to choir on FUD
and 'utopian routing policies' (see geographical, or should I say
geopolitical routing), and this move toward PI addressing in ARIN land is
definitely a great step and achievement toward success of IPv6 as an
internet protocol.

--
Regards,

James Jun
Managing Director
TowardEX Technologies, Inc.

Phone: +1 617-459-4051 x179
Mobile: +1 978-394-2867
Fax: +1 432-225-3784

Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:21:18 +0200

On 14-apr-2006, at 18:09, James Jun wrote:

> enterprise customers who require usability?

How about you do a "show ip bgp" and experience some pain of your own?

> IPv6 is a failure

IPv6 was created so we could continue to have an internet when we're  
out of IPv4 addresses. We're not out of IPv4 addresses yet. How can  
IPv6 be a failure at this point?

> because of
> still susceptible to,

We've managed to make a fairly big mess of IPv4 in 25 years. Yes, it  
still works but it's not pretty. IPv6 is supposed to last a lot  
longer than 25 years, so explosions of any kind are to be discouraged.

---

From: "James Jun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:38:43 -0400

> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:21 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]

Yes, discouraging customers from multihoming and delivering
reliability--that appears to be the common message from a good portion of
IPv6-advocacy groups.  IPv6 is still IP, and not anything different than
IPv4 other than a color: more address space.  If it is all of a sudden going
to require shim6 or similar, and discourage multihoming like the way it
happens today in IPv4, it certainly does not help.

Yes I look at `sh ip bgp` everyday (or show route protocols bgp for that
matter).  The deaggregation is there, but nowhere is it at a level that I'm
going to lose sleep over it.  One would think if you want IPv6 to better
develop, let people *use* the technology as they did freely in IPv4, and
work on a more scalable forwarding lookup & routing technology instead of
restricting people's ability to become multihomed.  To say that we service
providers are simply more worried about our paycheck than the internet...
well, I beg to differ.

James

---

From: Mohacsi Janos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:51:32 +0200 (CEST)

> happens today in IPv4, it certainly does not help.

There is some solution to provide some form multihoming for IPv6:
3178 IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers. J. Hagino, H.
        Snyder. October 2001. (Format: TXT=24453 bytes) (Status:
        INFORMATIONAL

This solution is not very pretty, but you can keep the aggregation at 
Tier-1 and probably at Tier-2 porviders.

Regards,

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE  21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:17:52 +0200

On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for  
> someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity.   
> Congratulations.

Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a scalable  
multihoming off the ground (flying to different meetings on my own  
dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected within  
the IETF mostly without due consideration because it involves the  
taboo word "geography" only to see the next best thing being rejected  
by people who, as far as I can tell, lack a view of the big picture,  
is enough to make me lose my cool. Just a little.

> Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground"  
> appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position.  I know I do.

Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are so  
radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, inside the IETF  
there are also people who think PI in IPv6 won't be a problem, but  
it's not the majority (as far as I can tell) and certainly not  
anything close to 90%. Now the IETF process isn't perfect, as many  
things depend on whether people feel like actually doing something.  
But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been around  
for some time in multi6 and really looked at the problem. Many, if  
not most, of them concluded that we need something better than IPv4  
practices to make IPv6 last as long as we need it to last. Do you  
think all of them were wrong?

> I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in the  
> past.  But I would urge you to stick to those,

Stay tuned.

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:09:45 +0200

On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 13:20 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
> > [very nice cross posting going on here ;) ]
> 
> Nah, I just hit "reply-all", but only one actually made it through.   
> I'm not subscribed to the rest of the lists.
> 
> I've lowered the CC list to something more reasonable now.
> 
> Oh, and commenting derisively on something you do yourself seems a  
> bit silly.

Well, just like you, I also nicely hit 'reply-all', except that I am on
the other lists too, thus now your original message did mostly come
through anyway.

> > On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 12:10 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > [...
> > large snip about trying to bash shim6 which is not finalized
> > yet, thus how can you bash it ?
> > Note: extra sarcasm included in this post. Eat the eggs with salt.
> > ...]
> 
> I don't remember bashing shim6.  I remember saying people do not  
> agree it is the way to go.
>
> As for "finalized", if I don't agree with the basic idea of a  
> technology (e.g. inserting a "shim" into the IP packet), how can you  
> "finalize" it to something with which I will agree?

How can you not agree with something which is not there yet?
You don't like super-duper space engines yet either?

As mentioned, from a business point of view I agree totally, I would not
want it either. From a tech point of view, it will be one of the better
things since sliced bread. The future will tell though.

> >> Oh, and one thing I should have said last time: Technical arguments
> >> are important, but they are only part of the decision process.
> >
> > In other words: "You are right with your arguments, but I just threw
> > your args away as they are futile based on the comparison of money
> > earned this way or the other."...
> 
> I'm going to assume you are being sarcastic here, since your  
> "translation" is factually incorrect.  I was clear the technical  
> arguments are not sufficient, or even close.  I was adding that the  
> business elements are an additional hurdle.

Yes, there is some work to be done on shim6, but as long as it isn't
complete, don't say that it is dead already.

> BTW: Sarcasm is usually intended to either be funny or illustrate a  
> point.  Your sarcasms is definitely not funny, and the only point you  
> are illustrating here is a complete misunderstanding of the  
> discussion at hand.

The discussion: "yeah shim6 is dead, long live PI".
Very hard indeed.

> >> People (like me) have explained that the Internet is a business, and
> >> in addition to being .. technically unsavory to many people, shim6 is
> >> simply not viable in a business setting.
> >
> > And as you will only care for your business for the coming 10 or maybe
> > 20 years you really can't care what happens to the internet afterward.
[..]
> This is close to a useful argument.
> 
> First...
[..]

I would not agree less.

> >> Neither backbone operators
> >> (vendors) nor end users (customers) are warming to the idea.  Just
> >> the opposite.  (At least in general, the one-in-a-million end user
> >> with DSL and cable who likes the idea 'cause he can't figure out how
> >> to spell "B-G-P" or doesn't want to pay for it is irrelevant.)
> >
> > Irrelevant for you as they don't give you money. Indeed, you only look
> > at your own business interrest (and who can blame you for that ;)
> > (Once though the internet was there for the masses and not only for  
> > the
> > ones with cash)
> 
> No, irrelevant PERIOD.  You cannot architect the Internet for the one- 
> in-a-million end user, _especially_ one who does not pay for the  
> infrastructure.

Isn't that like *exactly* what I wrote there: "They don't _pay you_
money and thus you don't care about them."
Which is perfectly valid from a business point of view. But it is
totally not perfect when looking at what the IETF wanted to achieve with
PA-only space.

Some people tend to the little guys, other only cash in on the big ones.
That is business. But that has nothing to do with engineering a sound
protocol.

[..]
> And I still dislike shim6 both technically and commercially,  
> personally and professionally.  So does every technical person at my  
> company who has any interest in this topic.

As I wrote in the previous mail, just wait till shim6 is finalized then
start flaming it. Nevertheless, it should be backward compatible and it
will 

> It is not just backbones.  Shim6 is not commercially viable.  Period.

As I also mentioned, there is enough interrest for it, if you don't want
it then simply ignore it.

> > That is in the long run, most likely in the coming 10-20 years the  
> > IPv6
> > routing tables will not have 'exploded' yet, but the folks selling
> > equipment and having stocks of those venders after that most likely  
> > will
> > have a nice retirement fund. Thanks to you!
> 
> First, thank you for thinking I am so important.

Well the "you" is the group of people who arranged the PI. But if you
want to take the credit, they are all yours ;)

> Second: Whatever.  If you honestly believe cisco & juniper will fail  
> or succeed based on shim6, you really need to reevaluate your  
> hypothesis.

Those companies can't care less, why should they, they can keep on
selling bigger fatter newer shinier boxes anyway.

> > Nevertheless, the PI thing is really *not* a bad thing, as it can be
> > used as an identifier for shim6, which is actually perfect. It just
> > saves on having to do a complete policy process for getting address
> > space for this type of usage. But thanks to this, this won't be needed
> > and thus in the end anybody who can get PI can use a shim6-alike
> > solution and won't have any problem with the upstream that actually
> > wanted to lock them in by letting them pay loads for an entry in  
> > the BGP
> > tables.
> >
> > Thus people voting for PI, thanks for helping shim6 or another  
> > solution
> > in that space, progress a lot :)
> 
> Then why are we arguing about this?

Did I argue? I only commented about some of your statements to which I
don't agree.

Greets,
 Jeroen