[137319] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Feb 10 22:12:45 2011
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D54A4EC.5060209@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:11:32 -0500
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>=20
>> If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
>> without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
>> best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
>>=20
>=20
> When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely =
wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block =
dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that
>=20
> 1) We won't route this, so use it
>=20
> 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where =
it might be routed.
>=20
> All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN =
purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, =
which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone =
with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after =
all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current =
practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD =
space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there =
has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the =
IETF and in RIRs).
Jack,
I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list went =
to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this =
month. Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is =
groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..)
I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some of us =
think. The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this =
with their cellular/data networks. Doing this on some of the consumer =
networks will likely not be "that much" pain. Obviously the pain will =
vary per subscriber/home.
I think despite everyones dislike, distaste and wish that the IPv6 =
situation didn't smell quite as bad as it does, we're certainly stuck =
with it. I don't see anyone deploying a new solution anytime soon, and =
it having broad market acceptance/coding.
Many of us wish that IPv6 didn't have a lot of "unecessary/ugly" stuff. =
I wish that the network situation wasn't as ugly, but none of this will =
make it so. We will have to continue to improve and augment the =
autoconf, dhcpv6, etc environment. The existing hosts need to be fixed =
(eg: my laptop won't do ipv6 over pptp/vpn properly without a hack), =
etc..
IPv4 is "dead" in my opinion. Not dead as in useless, but to the point =
where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time worrying =
about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed in IPv6 =
land.
Please make sure you list IPv6 *first* in your RFPs, and the IPv4 =
capabilities under the 'legacy protocols' for 2011. If we're truly =
going to have the promise of the Internet, we need these market forces =
to drive the carriers and SME/Prosumer markets to lead the way for the =
grandparents to still get to their "Google, Bing" et al, and not just =
those of us who know there will be an IPv6 day and have our mailboxes =
filled with IPv6 "spam" this month.
- Jared=
