[137333] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Feb 11 01:59:23 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.vqpze2fhtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:57:21 -0800
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:46 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman =
<matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>> There is no one universal "global routing table". They probably =
appear in someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
>=20
> Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of =
the resource. Go to any registry and ask for address space for your =
private networking that you do not intend to announce to the internet. =
They will laugh at you, and point you to RFC1918. (and likely flag you =
as someone to whom address space should never be assigned.) The only =
reason legacy holders get away with such crap is because there's no =
clear contract governing their assignment.
>=20
Um...
=46rom the ARIN NRPM:
4.3.5. Non-connected Networks
End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be =
connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address =
numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When =
private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the =
private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses =
may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity.
Notice how it specifically allows a non-connected network to request and =
use globally unique addresses?
If you think that should be changed, then, you need to get on PPML and =
submit a policy proposal to change that.
For now, no, they will not laugh at you (at least not at ARIN), they =
will actually issue the numbers if you approach
them with an appropriate justification.
>> How many days do you think a single /8 lasts at current assignment =
rates?
>=20
> APNIC says the last 2 /8's they were assigned (triggering the dead-man =
clause) would last ~6mo. With responsible use, 22 /8's would last =
several years. (3-5 best guess. Of course, there could be a land-rush =
and all of it disappear next week -- see also: responsible use)
>=20
That's 1 of 5 RIRs, so, even if you consider them a straw-man model, =
that's 20 /8s per year. Please tell me
how a consumption rate of 20 /8s per year can take 3-5 years to consume =
22 /8s
You seem to be particularly bad at math or you don't understand the RIR =
system. I'm not sure which.
Also, note that at the time APNIC got their last 2 /8s all of the other =
RIRs were 2 or more months ahead of them
in exhausting their last IANA allocations.
>> How would ARIN/ICANN go about reclaiming addresses that someone =
believes they are using but that you don't think are in use?
>=20
> First off, someone will have to do a lot more than 5 minutes of poking =
router-servers to see just how sparsely used ("announced") the space =
really is. That includes digging through BGP histories to see if it's =
ever been announced. Then research who should be in control of the =
space (announced or not.) Then send out nasty sounding letters =
informing whomever that X address space has not been announced to the =
public internet in Y years; on Z date, the space will reenter the =
IANA/ICANN free pool for reassignment. (cue lawyers :-)) They'd also be =
highly motivated to return unused space if they were being billing for =
it.
>=20
As multiple people have pointed out to you, never announced in a visible =
way is not the same as not in use.
ARIN policy specifically allows use for non-connected networks. If you =
don't like that fact, you can attempt
to change ARIN policy. Such a change being applied retro-actively, =
however, is unlikely to succeed
IMHO. If you can't apply it retroactively, then, the existing networks =
that are using unique addresses on
their private networks will not be forced to return them.
> As the powers that be have drug their feet for over a decade already, =
I really doubt they'll even take 5 minutes to look at *a single* route =
server.
>=20
This isn't foot-dragging. This is recognizing the art of the possible =
and understanding the reality of the
situation. I realize you are apparently loathe to do so.
> As for this "not fixing the problem", IPv4 is going to be a problem =
for MANY years to come. IPv6 deployment is glacially slow. IPv4 being =
"out of space" is getting news attention now, but will fade from the =
spotlight shortly. The
IPv4 will be a problem for a few years. This will not improve that fact.
IPv6 deployment has been glacially slow, but, is accelerating rapidly, =
especially since 1/31.
> people who have space will continue to have it and generally not =
notice the lack of availablity. The likes of
People who have space may not notice a need for space on their networks, =
but, they will absolutely notice a
need for access to or from up and coming IPv6-only networks where users =
have limited, degraded, or no
connectivity to IPv4.
> Facebook, etc., have jumped on IPv6 because they have a reason to... =
they have volumes of IPv6 connected eyeballs. Yet the likes of Amazon =
and Akamai, aren't supporting IPv6 (and have no published plans to.) =
Almost all of=20
http://www.akamai.com/ipv6
Looks like a public announcement on IPv6 from Akamai to me.
I am not sure about Amazon. I couldn't find anything in a quick google =
search.
Certainly it would be good if they had a plan and better if they =
announced it.
> the major ISPs in the country still don't fully support IPv6 -- the =
few that do embrace v6 make it a pain in the ass to get it setup. I =
don't support IPv6 (since elink killed their experiment); I can get =
everywhere I care to go, and everyone who cares to get to me does. I, =
like many/most others, will fix that problem when it *is* a problem.
>=20
Actually, the major ISPs do support IPv6 on some level.
There are several providers, Hurricane Electric included, where you can =
get IPv6 easily set up and it is
relatively painless, actually. There are others that are still debugging =
their business processes around
IPv6. I suspect this will rapidly improve in the coming months.
> (For the record... TWTC: not supported, Speakeasy: not supported, VZB: =
not recommended for an existing connection (if you want it to stay =
working))
>=20
For the record:
TWTC: Supported, TWC: Working on it.
VZB: Actually, I know a few people that have working dual-stack =
connections with VZB and did not have any major issues with the =
conversion from IPv4 to dual stack.
This is by no means any sort of exhaustive list of major providers or =
even a top 3. It's a rather odd choice of 3 as near as I can tell.
A somewhat out of date, but, more detailed perspective is here: =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment
There are a number of providers offering Native IPv6 not listed there.
Owen
