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

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:05:49 -0700

>> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> However, geographic addressing could give us
>> aggregation with provider independence.
 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling
> simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million
> enterprise customers and ten billion total hosts to convince me.

The problem with geo PI aggregation is expectations: if we set any
aggregation expectations it won't fly because too many people have
legitimate concerns about its feasibility. Personally I think that some
gains are possible, but I'm not sure these gains will offset the amount
of work required.

My $0.02 about geo PI: a strategy change is needed. Instead of
presenting geo PI as the solution that would give PI without impacting
the routing table (this will not fly because there are too few believers
and too many unknowns), present it as the icing on the cake of a
comprehensive non-geo PI proposal.

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as
>> global ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too
>> small. This brings the debate of what to do with class E, either
>> make it extended private space or make it global unicast.

> Eliot Lear wrote: 
> I think we bite the bullet and go to IPv6.

I just rubbed my desktop lamp and I regret to report that no genie came
out of it to grant your wish.

> Screwing around with Class E address space at
> this late date is counterproductive.

Not screwing around with it means more dirty tricks and more double NAT.
IMHO the strategy of keeping class E reserved hoping that it will
accelerate the deployment of v6 is futile.

> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> [ARIN PI policy]
> and now just as these efforts are getting close to paying off
> (shim6) a small group of people decides to throw caution in the
> wind and adopt a policy that opens the door to exactly the
> problems the IETF has been working so hard to avoid.

These people are tired of hearing the broken record "getting close to"
that they heard consistently for the last 10 years.

> Kevin Loch wrote:
> In case you (IETF) didn't get the memo, the operational
> community has flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form
> as a replacement for PI.
> This failure of leadership from the IETF to provide a
> roadmap for a viable alternative to PI is a factor in the
> support for going with the current technology.

I have to agree with Kevin here.

Michel.

A little late and off-topic:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Peer-to-peer isn't a good example, because of the high built-in
> redundancy. Even someone who can only set up outgoing sessions
> can run BitTorrent without too much trouble because there are
> plenty of peers without NAT or portmappings of some kind (manual,
> uPnP or NAT-PMP) that can receive the incoming sessions. When the
> sessions are up, traffic can flow both ways.

Technically speaking you are correct (this is called tit-to-tat I
believe), but it does not work in the real world, reason being UL/DL
ratios. Many "interesting" (use your own definition of it) torrent sites
have dedicated trackers that enforce ratios; relying on the mechanism
you describe can never achieve a UL:DL of 1. I do acknowledge that there
are scores of leechers out there, but most of them sooner or later will
open the ports in order to be able to seed completed torrents and up
their ratio. Demographics show large number of teens who are technically
savvy enough to get into the Web interface of their NAT box with
admin/admin and open the ports.

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

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:14:51 -0400 (EDT)

On 04/14/06 at 11:05am -0700, Michel Py <[email-masked]...:

> >> However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with
> >> provider independence.
>
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:

I agree, especially in the near term.  Aggregation is not required right
now, but having the *ability* to aggregate later on is a prudent risk
reduction strategy if today's cost to do so is minimal (as I think it is).

> comprehensive non-geo PI proposal.

That's exactly what I'm pushing for.  I'm in the process of brainstorming
with other interested parties (and potential co-authors) to put together
an ARIN public policy proposal that directs ARIN to assign PI netblocks in
a regular fashion instead of the current random (chronological) fashion
used for IPv4.  As I stated above, I don't think aggregating is necessary
or wise just yet, but I think that setting things up now, to make it
possible to do so later if needed, is wise and prudent, and can be done
with little or no additional complexity (cost).

-Scott

---

From: Peter Dambier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:50:59 +0200

> comprehensive non-geo PI proposal.

The best possible way to prevent IPv6 is give prefix::1 to somebody in
Newyork, prefix::2 to somebody in Kapstadt, prefix::x to Newyork again ...
and wait for the routers to crash because of memory exhaustion.

Next wait for somebody to build routers with Gigabyte memory and wait for
them to find an entry. If it really can find it you might try to retract
and renew it in 2 hour intervalls. I am shure you will bring them down :)

> that they heard consistently for the last 10 years.

We already have a solution.

IPv9 TUBA

China has deployed it already.

TUBA is the only way for both the USA and China each of them to
have 75% of all ip addresses.

Every country will have 75% of all ip addresses.

There is no way to prevent this because there is no better way for
total control and censorship.

And everybody can keep and run his old IPv4 stuff. No need to
learn semething new.

Dictators will love it. They even will pay for it. They can,
because it is us who will pay the bill finally.

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
The Public-Root Consortium
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49(6252)671-788 (Telekom)
+49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: [email-masked]
mail: [email-masked]
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/