[143208] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Aug 2 20:42:13 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E389656.9070206@nwwnet.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:39:26 -0700
To: Scott Reed <sreed@nwwnet.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_CFEE0B26-47EA-4EA8-810C-5E8FCD77D1DF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
=46rom your description below, I am pretty sure that one of the =
following is true:
1. Your service area covers =E2=89=A41% of the population =
of whatever state
or province you are in.
or 2. Your state or province has a population =E2=89=A41% of =
the US national
population.
I would argue that I am not an "abnormal" household by any definition =
other than
my internet access and that even by that definition, I am not =
particularly abnormal
where I live.
There are many people I know of with much more expensive and elaborate
internet connectivity to their houses than what I have within 30 miles =
of me.
While I don't think I represent the typical residential ISP customer, I =
do think that
the typical customer will eventually learn what static addressing is and =
will want
it for a variety of reasons.
Owen
On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> Nothing I can disagree with in your statements and I am not trying to =
argumentative, but I know my customer base and I can assure you there is =
not one one them that could tell you what
> ARIN
> Multi-home
> BGP
> OSPF
> RA
> or a host of other terms in your response are, let alone what they =
mean, why they would care, what they would do with it, etc.
> And you obviously live in a metropolitan area because there isn't DSL =
in most of my service are, nor is there cable, fiber of any kind and =
sometimes even satellite doesn't work. Very few of my customers could =
be dual-homed, let alone mutil-homed, if they wanted to.
> So, in order to keep the discussion general and to cover all the =
customer types, skill levels, etc., I really think we need to assume =
your are not a "normal" household that purchase Internet connectivity to =
play a game and check Facebook.
>=20
> One other comment.
> Even those of us the run very small businesses give away things for =
market share, visibility, etc.
>=20
> On 8/2/2011 8:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, james machado wrote:
>>=20
>>>>> Lets look at some issues here.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 1) it's unlikely that a "normal" household with 2.5 kids and a =
dog/cat
>>>>> will be able to qualify for their own end user assignment from =
ARIN.
>>>>>=20
>>>> Interesting...
>>>>=20
>>>> I have a "normal household".
>>>> I lack 2.5 kids and have no dog or cat.
>>>>=20
>>>> I have my own ARIN assignment.
>>>>=20
>>>> Are you saying that the 2.5 kids and the dog/cat would disqualify =
them? I can't
>>>> find such a statement in ARIN policy.
>>>>=20
>>>> Are you saying that a household that multihomes is abnormal? =
Perhaps today,
>>>> but, not necessarily so in the future.
>>>>=20
>>> Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with
>>> today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue. You =
are
>>> not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing =
to
>>> pay $1500+ US a year for your own AS, IP assignments 3) Internet
>>> service, much like cell phone service is a commodity product and =
many
>>> people go for the lowest price. They are not looking for the best
>>> options.
>>>=20
>> 1) yes.
>> 2) Uh, no. I pay $100/year to ARIN for all of my IP resources. I =
really don't
>> know where this $1,500+/year myth keeps coming from.
>> I bet most households pay more than $100/year for their internet =
access.
>> Heck, if you pay Comcast $5/month for a single static IP, you're =
paying
>> more than half of what I pay for =
1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,944
>> addresses and an AS Number. If you pay $9/month for 10 static =
IPs
>> to Comcast (these are their current rates, btw), you are paying
>> them MORE than I pay ($108 instead of $100) per year.
>> 3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get =
static for the
>> same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that =
some
>> will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
>> can get static. You can get free static tunnels for IPv6 today.
>>=20
>> So, no, the monopoly problem does not prevent what I am doing from
>> being done in most households because:
>>=20
>> 1. Most monopolies are actually at least duopolies with at =
least
>> one cable and at least one DSL or PON provider.
>>=20
>> 2. Contract monopolies are actually reducing rather than =
growing.
>>=20
>>=20
>>>>> 2) if their router goes down they loose network connectivity on =
the
>>>>> same subnet due to loosing their ISP assigned prefix.
>>>> I keep hearing this myth, and I really do not understand where it =
comes from.
>>>> If they get a static prefix from their ISP and configure it into =
their router and/or
>>>> other equipment, it does not go away when they loose their router. =
It simply
>>>> isn't true.
>>> If they are using RA's to assign their network and the router goes
>>> down they can loose the network as well as the router thus going to
>>> link-local addresses. This has been discusses ad-nauseum on this
>>> list. As I recall you played a big part of that discussion and it =
was
>>> very interesting and informative.
>>>=20
>> 1. Why would you use RAs to assign numbers to things you want to =
work
>> when the router goes down.
>>=20
>> 2. This presumes they have only one router. There is no reason, =
given
>> static addressing, that they cannot have a High and a Medium =
priority
>> router. The High priority router provides connectivity to the =
ISP and the
>> medium priority router is essentially /dev/null, but, keeps the =
addresses
>> active.
>>=20
>> Yes, it has been discussed before, but, it continues to be made clear =
that
>> people are still applying a mixture of misinformation and IPv4-think =
to
>> the IPv6 situation, so, I continue to work towards better education.
>>=20
>>>>> 3) If they are getting dynamic IP's from their ISP and it changes =
they
>>>>> may or may not be able to print, connect to a share, things like =
that.
>>>>>=20
>>>> Perhaps, but, this is another reason that I think sane customers =
will start demanding
>>>> static IPv6 from their providers in relatively short order.
>>>>=20
>>> I hope this happens but I'm guessing that with marketing and sales =
in
>>> the mix it will be another up charge to get this "service" and =
enough
>>> people won't pay it that we will be fighting these problems for a =
long
>>> time. Some businesses will pay it and some won't but the home user
>>> will probably not.
>>>=20
>> Amusingly, I have, so far, refused to pay it to Comcast on my =
business
>> class service. Every once in a while, they renumber my address and I =
have
>> to reconfigure my tunnel. (I'm using commodity internet access for =
layer
>> 2 transport into my home. The BGP is done between my home router and
>> routers in colo facilities via GRE).
>>=20
>>>>> these 3 items make a case for everybody having a ULA. however =
while
>>>>> many of the technical bent will be able to manage multiple =
addresses I
>>>>> know how much tech support I'll be providing my parents with =
either an
>>>>> IP address that goes away/changes or multiple IP addresses. I'll =
set
>>>>> them up on a ULA so there is consistency.
>>>>>=20
>>>> No, they don't. They make a great case for giving people static =
GUA.
>>> These are businesses were talking about. They are not going to =
"give"
>>> anything away.
>>>=20
>> Interesting=E2=80=A6 Hurricane Electric is a business. We give away =
IPv6 /48s to
>> tunnel broker users. In fact, we give away IPv6 transit services and =
tunnel
>> access. I see lots of businesses giving things away to try and gain =
market
>> advantage and customer awareness all the time. Why do you think that
>> a business would not do so, given the overwhelming evidence to the
>> contrary?
>>=20
>>>>> Complain about NAT all you want but NAT + RFC 1918 addressing in =
IPv4
>>>>> made things such as these much nicer in a home and business =
setting.
>>>>>=20
>>>> No, it really didn't. If IPv4 had contained enough addresses we =
probably
>>>> wouldn't have always-on dynamic connections in the first place.
>>>>=20
>>> Debatable but not worth an argument. Having said that the ability =
to
>>> 1) not have to renumber internal address space on changing ISPs 2) =
not
>>> having to give a printer (or other device with no security) a public
>>> IP address or run multiple addressing schemes and the security
>>> implications there of 3) change the internals of my network without
>>> worrying about the world are all important and critical issues for =
me.
>>>=20
>> Addressing !=3D security. This issue has definitely been rehashed on
>> here several times and the reality is that you can have just as =
secure
>> a permit/deny policy with just as much of a default deny with public
>> addresses as you can without them. The difference, of course, is that
>> with public addresses, you have the option of creating permit rules
>> that may not be possible with private addresses depending on your
>> particular implementation (or lack thereof) of address translation.
>>=20
>> 1. Multihome and get portable GUA, problem solved. If it's actually
>> important to you, this is easy.
>>=20
>> 2. Since you can give it a public address and still block access
>> between the internet and it if you so choose (I actually find
>> it rather convenient to be able to print at home and the only
>> extra crap that comes out of my printer so far arrives via the
>> telephone line and the G3 protocol, not via IP), public GUA
>> does not change the nature of this issue.
>>=20
>> 3. I can change the internals of my network without worrying
>> about the world. I'm not sure why you think I can't. Frankly,
>> this claim makes no sense to me whatsoever.
>>=20
>>> I realize that these arguments are at layers 8& 9 of the OSI model
>>> (politics and religion) but that does not make them less real nor =
less
>>> important. They are not the same issues that ISP operators may
>>> normally have to deal with but they are crucial to business =
operators.
>>> The DSCP/RA arguments are of the same criticality and importance.
>> Agreed. However, misinformation and FUD remains misinformation
>> and FUD regardless of the ISO protocol layer in question.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays Networking, LLC
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
>=20
> www.nwwnet.net
> (765) 855-1060
> (765) 439-4253
> (855) 231-6239
>=20
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_CFEE0B26-47EA-4EA8-810C-5E8FCD77D1DF
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=smime.p7s
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature;
name=smime.p7s
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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=
--Apple-Mail=_CFEE0B26-47EA-4EA8-810C-5E8FCD77D1DF--
