Subject: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address

From: Loganaden Velvindron <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:09:53 +0400

I would support seeing this work move forward. There are still many
countries in the developing world who will not be able to update to
IPv6 any time soon due to legacy equipment and will be using IPv4 for
a long time.

(Disclaimer:  I submitted a few patches to the IPv4 extension project).

---

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:49:38 -0800

On the general subject of the recent IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project drafts, is the intarea WG the intended WG for adopting them?  I ask because discussion of issues raised in these drafts took place in the sunset4 WG before it concluded.

Regards, Greg

> On Nov 15, 2021, at 11:09 PM, Loganaden Velvindron <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:32:52 +0000

Greg,

With my AD hat on, you are correct: intarea WG is currently the only suitable WG for discussion as its charter includes:
    The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts primarily as a forum
    for discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire area. Such
    topics include, for instance, address space issues, basic IP layer
    functionality, and architectural questions.

But please also note the 2nd condition for new work in https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intarea/about/ 

Up to the authors if they want to try to get this work adopted but, honestly, I have hard time to see this being adopted.

Regards

-éric

On 18/11/2021, 05:50, "Int-area on behalf of Greg Skinner" <[email-masked] on behalf of gregskinner0=[email-masked]> wrote:

    Regards, Greg

    > (Disclaimer:  I submitted a few patches to the IPv4 extension project).

    _______________________________________________
    Int-area mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 14:56:14 -0500

I don't hate this draft.   But making tweaks to IPv4 at this stage seems 
like making improvements to the altimeter in a Dusenberg.

IMO IPv4 should be declared at EOL in 2025, and further work on IPv4 
should require significant justification.   The questions for any 
proposed enhancements to IPv4 at this stage should be like:

(a) will this change to IPv4 improve or facilitate adoption of IPv6 or 
ease the transition away from IPv4 in favor of IPv6?
(b) is this change to IPv4 helpful to permit continued interoperability 
with legacy IPv4-only systems that are still needed?

I'm not saying these are absolutely the only reasons to do additional 
work on IPv4 at this stage, but the list of valid reasons is probably small.

Perhaps more importantly, while protocol changes that require software 
changes can sometimes be widely deployed rather quickly (thanks to 
automatic or semi-automatic over-the-wire software updates), protocol 
changes that require changes to manual configuration of hosts, routers, 
or middleboxes are unlikely to be deployed nearly as quickly.

In this case it seems like use of .0 at this late date creates 
additional potential for operational networks to become more brittle and 
to result in strange inconsistencies that are difficult for ordinary 
users (and some other operators of small LAN segments) to track down.

***

But I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that tiny subnets need all of 
the addresses that they can get.   It shouldn't be necessary to get a 
/29 prefix just to be able to put three hosts on a LAN segment.   My 
house has a /28 and sometimes that's not been enough (though thankfully 
my carrier is finally supporting IPv6, so I care much less now).

It strikes me that it is the tiny subnets that not only need this relief 
most, but also are the ones that are least likely to be disrupted by 
meddleboxes, intrusion detectors, security monitors, etc. trying to be 
too clever.     But plenty of tiny networks have such meddleboxes.

Or maybe .0 should be the preferred address for the on prem router's 
configuration interface, freeing up other addresses on the subnet for 
ordinary hosts.   That way, most problems will show up immediately, and 
the ISP will be the ones who have to deal with it when it breaks.  (How 
many consumer-facing ISPs would want to make that change to their 
default router configurations?   I'm guessing not many, which might be a 
good indication of something.)

Overall, I think there's some potential for publication of this document 
to do more harm than good, even if it only recommends use of .0 for 
hosts on network segments that have, say, /26 or longer prefixes.  Is it 
really worth it?  (Or as one person suggested, is this a way to make 
IPv4 even more broken so that people will have to switch to IPv6?)

Keith