Is the time for conservation over?
One area of address policy that is fairly consistent world-wide is the view that IPv4 address space is scarce and that the policy must be conservative, i.e. the policy must make conservation of IPv4 addresses a high priority. I don't think that's true anymore. On the one hand, we have IPv6 deployed commercially in 3 of the 4 policy regions (Europe, AsiaPac, America) which indicates a continuing trend toward a future time where IPv6 service will be almost as easy to find as IPv4 service. On the other hand, the worst possible outcomes discussed when CIDR was first deployed are not going to happen. For instance there was a fear that the People's Republic of China might want 1/4 of the IPv4 space because they have 1/4 of the planet's population. This has not happened and is now quite unlikely to happen. Therefore, I believe that all the RIRs should jointly do some research to establish a prudent date at which IPv6 will be considered to have reached critical mass so that there will be a significant migration of users from IPv4 to IPv6. Once we set our sights on this date we should set aside a certain amount of buffer in the IPv4 space, and then design our policy to consume the rest of the IPv4 space, not to preserve it. At the same time, this policy shift should be presented as part of a global IPv6 migration strategy because that is what it is. In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the adoption of dual v4/v6 networks as we are today, we should be facilitating the operation of dual v4/v6 networks. We need to create an environment in which the end user can choose whether to use v4 or v6 rather than constraining the end users with our v4-centric regulatory bureaucracy. --Michael Dillon
In a message written on Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:54:45PM +0000, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
Therefore, I believe that all the RIRs should jointly do some research to establish a prudent date at which IPv6 will be considered to have reached critical mass so that there will be a significant migration of users from IPv4 to IPv6. Once we set our sights on this date we should
I am going to strongly disagree on this point at this time. We don't know that there will /ever/ be a strong migration of users to IPv6. IPv6 may yet flop completely, be replaced by IPv8 or something before it ever reaches full deployment, or even always live side by side with IPv4. Even if we assume everything migrates to IPv6, I see no reason why we should change IPv4 policy at all. First, if people are migrating IPv4 policy becomes irrevelant anyway. Second, if the IPv4 policy is hinderng things we should fix it in IPv6 policy to more quickly encourage cut over. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Leo and all, I also am in agreement with Leo on this point as well. IPv8 is already in significant deployment asia and elsewhere and is in some folks opinion, though I am sure not Michael's, a superior IP Protocol to IPv6, which has known Privacy problems. Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:54:45PM +0000, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
Therefore, I believe that all the RIRs should jointly do some research to establish a prudent date at which IPv6 will be considered to have reached critical mass so that there will be a significant migration of users from IPv4 to IPv6. Once we set our sights on this date we should
I am going to strongly disagree on this point at this time. We don't know that there will /ever/ be a strong migration of users to IPv6. IPv6 may yet flop completely, be replaced by IPv8 or something before it ever reaches full deployment, or even always live side by side with IPv4.
Even if we assume everything migrates to IPv6, I see no reason why we should change IPv4 policy at all. First, if people are migrating IPv4 policy becomes irrevelant anyway. Second, if the IPv4 policy is hinderng things we should fix it in IPv6 policy to more quickly encourage cut over.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1.2 Type: application/pgp-signature
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
In a message written on Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:50:10PM -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
I also am in agreement with Leo on this point as well. IPv8 is already in significant deployment asia and elsewhere and is in some folks opinion, though I am sure not Michael's, a superior IP Protocol to IPv6, which has known Privacy problems.
This was already brought up on PPML, but since another list is copied here I'll say it again. I had _NO_ idea there was an IPv8 proposal out there. I know nothing about it, don't support it, and don't care. s/IPv8/IPvFuture/ in my message please, that was my only intention. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:50:10PM -0800, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote a message of 49 lines which said:
IPv8 is already in significant deployment asia and elsewhere and is in some folks opinion, though I am sure not Michael's, a superior IP Protocol to IPv6,
For those who do not (yet) know him, be assured you can safely ignore all messages coming from Jeff Williams, known troll in the Internet governance issues. (And, as we know, IPv8 does not exist.)
Stephane and all, See: http://www.ipv8.info/ I am sorry to see that the moderator allowed this retort of dubious quality to be allowed to post to this forum. I hope that such name calling antics would of course be below the standard of the participants of this forum and such perpetrators be requested to discontinue such unproductive discourse... Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:50:10PM -0800, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote a message of 49 lines which said:
IPv8 is already in significant deployment asia and elsewhere and is in some folks opinion, though I am sure not Michael's, a superior IP Protocol to IPv6,
For those who do not (yet) know him, be assured you can safely ignore all messages coming from Jeff Williams, known troll in the Internet governance issues.
(And, as we know, IPv8 does not exist.)
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jeff Williams wrote: Stephane, Allow me to join you in the name calling. RIPE moderator, Jeff is a noted "net-kook" and should be filtered from all RIPE mailing lists. -Hank
Stephane and all,
I am sorry to see that the moderator allowed this retort of dubious quality to be allowed to post to this forum.I hope that such name calling antics would of course be below the standard of the participants of this forum and such perpetrators be requested to discontinue such unproductive discourse...
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:50:10PM -0800, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote a message of 49 lines which said:
IPv8 is already in significant deployment asia and elsewhere and is in some folks opinion, though I am sure not Michael's, a superior IP Protocol to IPv6,
For those who do not (yet) know him, be assured you can safely ignore all messages coming from Jeff Williams, known troll in the Internet governance issues.
(And, as we know, IPv8 does not exist.)
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
Hank Nussbacher
On Thursday 30 October 2003, at 7 h 28, Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il> wrote:
Jeff is a noted "net-kook" and should be filtered from all RIPE mailing lists.
Unless we want some unproductive discourse from time-to-time. After all, work is hard and a good laugh is always a welcomed distraction.
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Unless we want some unproductive discourse from time-to-time. After all, work is hard and a good laugh is always a welcomed distraction.
No, that's *my* job :-) Peter
Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:28:53AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jeff Williams wrote:
Stephane,
Allow me to join you in the name calling.
Count me in :-)
RIPE moderator,
Jeff is a noted "net-kook" and should be filtered from all RIPE mailing lists.
I tend to disagree. Unless it gets excessive (as with Jim Fleming) we shouldn't block people from the RIPE lists. I think we can live with the occasional "IPv8 exists and is so much superiour" comments - always good for a laugh. Gert Doering, speaking only for myself here -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi, On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:00:13PM -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
Stephane and all,
I am sorry to see that the moderator allowed this retort of dubious quality to be allowed to post to this forum. I hope that such name calling antics would of course be below the standard of the participants of this forum and such perpetrators be requested to discontinue such unproductive discourse...
Just to clarify something. The RIPE apwg mailing list is *not* moderated, so there are no "moderators" that can stop people from "name calling". On the other hand, you and Jim Fleming are provoking harsh responses by entering productive discussions and trolling around with "IPv8" - so don't claim surprise. Gert Doering -- APWG co-chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
One area of address policy that is fairly consistent world-wide is the view that IPv4 address space is scarce and that the policy must be conservative, i.e. the policy must make conservation of IPv4 addresses a high priority.
I don't think that's true anymore.
-snip-
Therefore, I believe that all the RIRs should jointly do some research to establish a prudent date at which IPv6 will be considered to have reached critical mass so that there will be a significant migration of users from IPv4 to IPv6. Once we set our sights on this date we should set aside a certain amount of buffer in the IPv4 space, and then design our policy to consume the rest of the IPv4 space, not to preserve it. At the same time, this policy shift should be presented as part of a global IPv6 migration strategy because that is what it is.
It sounds a little bit contradictory to give away IPv4 addresses when you want people to migrate to IPv6, doesn't it? One of the supposed advantage of IPv6 is the as-much-as-you-can-eat approach to addresses (at least on your local end). So I think your proposal is seriously flawed and contradicts your desired goal.
In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the adoption
The problem with IPv6 is that it doesn't fix any problems. When IPv6 was engineered it was done with (from today's perspective) wrong assumptions about the goals to achieve. Think about multihoming for IPv6 which is currently not possible (except for ISPs). And much more stuff on the operational side.
of dual v4/v6 networks as we are today, we should be facilitating the operation of dual v4/v6 networks. We need to create an environment in which the end user can choose whether to use v4 or v6 rather than constraining the end users with our v4-centric regulatory bureaucracy.
The end-user has no choice because the end-user is not able to make any choice since he lacks sufficient knowlege to trade off the (dis-)advantages of his choice. The choice is usually made by the ISP and the applications the user wants to use. For them it's just the Internet and not an IPv4 or IPv6 based transport network. -- Andre
Haym Andre Oppermann wrote:
Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
[...]
It sounds a little bit contradictory to give away IPv4 addresses when you want people to migrate to IPv6, doesn't it? One of the supposed advantage of IPv6 is the as-much-as-you-can-eat approach to addresses (at least on your local end).
So I think your proposal is seriously flawed and contradicts your desired goal.
Don't look at it that way, see my first reply on the original mail from Michael. I don't think the community would support any artificial shortage of (IPv4-)Address space as soon as they realize that there is "enough left for some decades". The only way I see is to trick them by letting them waste IPv4 space until there really is none left :-) I'm sorry if that sounds like a strange suggestion, but anyone got a better idea?
In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the adoption
The problem with IPv6 is that it doesn't fix any problems. When IPv6 was engineered it was done with (from today's perspective) wrong assumptions about the goals to achieve. Think about multihoming for IPv6 which is currently not possible (except for ISPs). And much more stuff on the operational side.
Well the multi-homing problem is rather a policy issue again by some of the network operators which don't want any /48's or some even nothing but /32's being allowed in the global routing table because they fear about the RAM usage and other scaling problems of of big routing tables. It actually has nothing to do with IPv6 itself. Those people just need to be kicked back into reality :-) But the problem with IPv6 just is, that almost noone really needs it.
of dual v4/v6 networks as we are today, we should be facilitating the operation of dual v4/v6 networks. We need to create an environment in which the end user can choose whether to use v4 or v6 rather than constraining the end users with our v4-centric regulatory bureaucracy.
The end-user has no choice because the end-user is not able to make any choice since he lacks sufficient knowlege to trade off the (dis-)advantages of his choice. The choice is usually made by the ISP and the applications the user wants to use. For them it's just the Internet and not an IPv4 or IPv6 based transport network.
ACK. But how to make ISPs will switch to IPv6 if there's enough IPv4 space left? As i said, i don't think it's possible to get an agreement within the community that no IPv4 space will be issued anymore from some date on or so. But i might be wrong. I just got very pessimistic about IPv6 throughout the last years since it's like talking against windmills (managers) if you don't have any busisinees-critical reasons for a change like towards IPv6. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Hay, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
One area of address policy that is fairly consistent world-wide is the view that IPv4 address space is scarce and that the policy must be conservative, i.e. the policy must make conservation of IPv4 addresses a high priority.
I don't think that's true anymore.
Right, i share this point of view for quite a while now, and also recently made some side-notes on this in some mails to the address-policy-wg list, too. My main motivation to change my opinion on this from "conserve!" to "waste!" was, that there is IPv6 now, and obviously noone found _any_ killer-application for IPv6 yet. So not many ISP managers see any reason to invest any time or money in IPv6, and almost no End-User does even know about IPv6. The only real "killer reason" for IPv6 is, that it's just needed if there is no more IPv4 space left. So, it's a bit populistic, but "waste IPv4 space, now!" is in general what should be done :-) Secondly, I also always thought that this whole "there is no more IPv4 left soon!" thing couldn't be true based on the very slow development nowerdays and the huge reserves. But i never mentioned it since i didn't really do any research about that and had no facts. If i look at the recent documents and talks about this (like the one during RIPE meeting mentioned earlier http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2003-07-v4-address-lifetime/ale.html for example), i'm quite sure now that this is a second reason why we should rethink the conservation policy. But some more annotations on your opinion:
On the one hand, we have IPv6 deployed commercially in 3 of the 4 policy regions (Europe, AsiaPac, America) which indicates a continuing trend toward a future time where IPv6 service will be almost as easy to find as IPv4 service. On the other hand, the worst possible outcomes discussed when CIDR was first deployed are not going to happen. For instance there was a fear that the People's Republic of China might want 1/4 of the IPv4 space because they have 1/4 of the planet's population. This has not happened and is now quite unlikely to happen.
There's the main problem, I'm in .de - quite many LIRs with IPv6 Allocations here... but, can i get native IPv6 conenctivity anywhere? As End-User almost not at all, as ISP for some Uplink? Same. (Yes, i know there are some ISPs, but it's far from "as easy to find as IPv4 Uplinks" yet). So i don't really see this coming anytime soon. As long as there is IPv4 space left, i really doubt that descent IPv6 deployment will happen.
Therefore, I believe that all the RIRs should jointly do some research to establish a prudent date at which IPv6 will be considered to have reached critical mass so that there will be a significant migration of users from IPv4 to IPv6. Once we set our sights on this date we should set aside a certain amount of buffer in the IPv4 space, and then design our policy to consume the rest of the IPv4 space, not to preserve it. At the same time, this policy shift should be presented as part of a global IPv6 migration strategy because that is what it is.
I don't really get what you want this for. Don't make things more complicated - make them easier! I.e. there is some special verificaton policy on static dialin IPs ect. in the RIPE Assigment documents. Or the "no reserverations allowed" paragraph is also a bit outdated since there are some new things like Sub-Allocations introduced now. ==> I only know the RIPE Policys in detail, but when talking about re-thinking the convervation policy, i mainly talk about re-thinking all the special-policies, just strike them out probably.
In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the adoption of dual v4/v6 networks as we are today, we should be facilitating the operation of dual v4/v6 networks. We need to create an environment in which the end user can choose whether to use v4 or v6 rather than constraining the end users with our v4-centric regulatory bureaucracy.
Whereas i strongly support a change of the IPv6 Allocation Policy to "give it to any LIR who wants it; strike out any requirements" for the reasons you gave here, the problem still remains - most IPv6 projects are more or less "private fun" of some network operators, very few ISPs do support it officially or have any plans for supporting IPv6 natively in their whole network any time soon (yes, there are positive exceptions of course). And there should be a formal request of course, no need to waste any IPv6 block if some LIR doesn't really want to have one for whatever reason. But just kick out the requirements we have as "slow start" mechanism up to now. I also had some nice discussions with some RIPE hostmasters and on the mailinglists about why the hell they require a network diagram in the IPv6 (Allocation) request form... probably someone remembers my rants (btw, i won) :-) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Hi, On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:54:45PM +0000, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the adoption
I have proposed that myself in the past. People don't like it. In retrospect, it's not such a good idea anyway. I strongly hope that a few of the big DSL ISPs will start deploying IPv6 "soon", and they might need much more space than a /32, eventually even more than a /29. So the scheme "give everyone a /32, and reserve a /29" isn't going to work for all of the networks, and I hope it's going to be changed "soon" anyway (allocation of much bigger blocks ICANN -> RIRs, and then use something similar to the "binary chop" proposed in RIPE-261 for the distribution RIR->LIRs [or maybe do by-country]). Because of this, I'd rather not take this approach. (Of course it's highly important that *if* a LIR comes asking, the /32 will be granted quickly and without annoying buerocracy :) - and if a LIR has a good deployment plan for something bigger than a /32, it will also work out without major pains. I've seen a /31 allocated, so it *can* be done!) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (9)
-
Andre Oppermann -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jeff Williams -
Leo Bicknell -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Peter Galbavy -
Sascha Lenz -
Stephane Bortzmeyer