[182394] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Wed Jul 15 23:07:49 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>, nanog@nanog.org
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:07:40 -0700
In-Reply-To: <55A6F0B3.8010302@ttec.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--SdWtVgQRMng7A0eHOH5GsxFMidPt0eFJx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 7/15/15 4:45 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody=
>>> other then the ipv6 adherents.
>>
>> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the=
>> good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more months o=
f
>> easy to get IPv4, but at an overwhelming cost to re-implement every
>> network stack.
>>
>> This option was considered back in the early 2000's when I was still
>> involved in the discussion, and rejected as impractical.
>>
>
>
> Removing experimental status does not equate with the burden of making
> it equivalent use to the rest of the address space.
>
> How about the ARIN burn rate post IANA runout? How long does 16 /8 last=
> then?
>
> What would be wrong with removing experimental status and allowing one
> of the /8 to be used for low barrier to /16 assignment to any party
> demonstrating a willingness to coax usability of the space?
>
> Yes, any such effort has to run the gauntlet of IETF/IANA/RIR policy.
>
> CGN /10 managed. This could too, if all the naysayers would just step
> out of the way.
Joe,
In this post, and in your many other posts today, you seem to be=20
asserting that this would work if "$THEY" would just get out of the way, =
and let it work. You've also said explicitly that you believe that this=20
is an example of top-down dictates. I know you may find this hard to=20
believe, but neither of these ideas turn out to be accurate. A little=20
history ...
In 2004 I was the manager of the IANA. Tony Hain came to me and said=20
that he'd been crunching some numbers and his preliminary research=20
indicated that the burn rate on IPv4 was increasing fairly dramatically, =
and that runout was likely to happen a lot sooner than folks expected it =
would. Various people started doing their own research along similar=20
lines and confirmed Tony's findings.
So amongst many others, I started taking various steps to "get ready"=20
for IPv4 runout. One of those steps was to talk to folks about the=20
feasibility of utilizing Class E space. Now keep in mind that I have no=20
dog in this hunt. I've never been part of an RIR, I've never worked for=20
a network gear company, I'm a DNS guy. To me, bits are bits.
I was told, universally, that there was no way to make Class E space=20
work, in the public Internet or private networks (because the latter was =
being considered as an expansion of 1918). There are just too many=20
barriers, not the least of which is the overwhelming number of=20
person-years it would take to rewrite all the software that has=20
assumptions about Class E space hard coded.
Further, the vendors we spoke to said that they had no intention of=20
putting one minute's worth of work into that project, because the ROI=20
was basically zero. In order for address space to "work" the standard is =
universal acceptance ... and that was simply never going to happen.=20
There are literally hundreds of millions of devices in active use right=20
now that would never work with Class E space because they cannot be=20
updated.
Of course it's also true that various folks, particularly the IETF=20
leadership, were/are very gung ho that IPv6 is the right answer, so any=20
effort put into making Class E space work is wasted effort; which should =
be spent on deploying IPv6. On a *personal* level I agree with that=20
sentiment, but (to the extent I'm capable of being objective) I didn't=20
let that feeling color my effort to get an honest answer from the many=20
folks I talked to about this.
But all that said, nothing is stopping YOU from working on it. :) The=20
IETF can't stop you, the vendors can't stop you, no one can stop you ... =
if you think you can make it work, by all means, prove us all wrong. :)=20
Find some others that agree with you, work on the code, do the=20
interoperability tests, and present your work. You never know what might =
happen.
In the meantime, please stop saying that not using this space was=20
dictated from the top down, or that any one party/cabal/etc. is holding=20
you back, because neither of those are accurate.
Good luck,
Doug
--=20
I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures.=20
This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not=20
validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or=20
to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!
--SdWtVgQRMng7A0eHOH5GsxFMidPt0eFJx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVpyABAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEwBMH/RmbLKwvKttMr+OeAzRQbiMq
YoHQ75WsMjsBevgzw7XjS8V5/KDTEugRaHmWVJIiZ9HU+lnO80J17s4WlwjOisKh
GTF7ilz+sDokQFDerOTgr/m3GYEBY4MZ5hvvGyzlc3NCqKCUQXcLm03Z9iH5Ou+G
9mTqJAgTV5NyJ5jB3iCzGzX658uYzI4PxWcT7mWor+2tJRwpD0hFhXHlmR6aK/n0
jxvX80S1CMExffaFY6dM+HvSUwVmlyHwN7oDSf4fiXHUtEkq+JeZHO0ChElf9MoK
pjmAAwFJWSI3KaRZHo7v3cyh7KA3t5FpbJRRPKK6WMFkJ6m/4mqSSFC+Cy5YJo4=
=UC1N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SdWtVgQRMng7A0eHOH5GsxFMidPt0eFJx--
