Subject: RE: A use for site local addresses?

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:20:34 -0800 (PST)

Jeroen,

Lets try that again.  The first attempt wasn't English.  Hopefully
this will at least resemble English.

> 
> Enduser ISP's will always charge for extra IP space as it's
> currently not customary to give an enduser more than 1 IP.
> Also IPv4 is a becoming a 'scarce' resource.
>

And what precisely will change this custom for IPv6?  Quoting RFCs
is silly in the face of MBAs motivated by profit.  It is folly.
 
> > Absent some regulation, there is no reason to believe that
> > they will stop charging for IPv6 address space no matter
> > how freely the bits are made available to them. 
> > It would be great if ISPs would charge for bandwidth
> > only but that simply isn't the way the world currently works 
> > and there is absolutely nothing about IPv6 that will change that.
> > More bits in the address don't mean diddly if the only way to
> > get the bits is through an oligarchy of ISPs.
> 
> If the ISP doesn't provide /48's to an endsite, other ISP's
> will have the advantage that they do. Also if the ISP doesn't
> they are going against RFC's.
>

RFCs fall regularly in the face of the profit motive.
 
> You might also realize that the current TLA policy for RIR's
> demands that you have 200 prospect clients. That is 200x /48.
> Aka 200 endusers on DSL will suffice for them.
> 
> Currently even most tunnelbroker system endusers get
> a /48 and in some cases even more. And they are not even
> paying for bandwidth nor for ipspace. Go figure ;)
> 

I have little faith that the current state of affairs will resemble the
eventual state of affairs.  No one currently expects to make money from
IPv6.  Once they do, address space will become a profit center.  MBAs don't
care about RFCs.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind ISPs making a profit.  If they don't I
won't have service but that doesn't mean that every small and medium
size business that can't pass itself off as an ISP should have their
internal topology held hostage by the local oligopoly of ISPs.  Small and
medium sized businesses simply won't accept that cost risk and will promptly
move to using NAT to protect themselves from renumbering and/or cost
uncertainty.  They can't really be expected to do anything else given IPv4's
history of real and manufactured address scarcity.

Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:51:24 +0100

> is silly in the face of MBAs motivated by profit.  It is folly.

Then I would suggest that you either educate them that IPv4 != Ipv6.
This is one thing one will have to do anyways. Just like the fact
that IPX != TCP/IP. Also if one doesn't want to follow RFC's then
don't expect to be able to communicate properly with the rest of
the world. But ofcourse that is my point of view and I don't like
taking into account money in technical matters.

> RFCs fall regularly in the face of the profit motive.

Like above, if you opt not to follow RFC's, STD's etc don't
expect to be able to communicate.

> I have little faith that the current state of affairs will 
> resemble the eventual state of affairs.  No one currently
> expects to make money from IPv6.  Once they do, address
> space will become a profit center.  MBAs don't care about RFCs.

I think you meant:
s/no one/apparently no one in the US/

Welcome to the global Internet where Asia is leading the developments.

> internal topology held hostage by the local oligopoly of ISP.

I agree indeed, this is what is the _current_ practice in the
IPv4 world is. But if we, the people deploying IPv6, clue in
the ISP's enough that they should not and I haven't heared
of any ISP who is asking money because
 'the customer wants a /48 and we don't have much address space'

If you have other versions of this story please show them.

> ISPs.  Small and medium sized businesses simply won't accept
> that cost risk and will promptly move to using NAT to protect
> themselves from renumbering and/or cost uncertainty.
> They can't really be expected to do anything else given IPv4's

If they are out to use NATs any way they can, I see absolutely
no reason for them to use IPv6 at all. Either clue them in that
they should follow the RFC's and spread /48's or let them keep
their NATs which will break

Again, this talk is about 'uncertainty', quite possibly because
of the 'fear' that they are going to change upstreams etc.
IMHO that can be fixed by Multihoming solutions, not by using NAT's.
And therefor I still see no need for link-locals.

To sum up, the only reasons I have seen so far and please add to
list if I miss a couple, which is quite probable and very much
related to NATs, which are being discussed for deprecation also...

 - Impact of site-local addressing -- Margaret Wasserman
 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.tx
t

   The appendix has a part about limitting usage to single sites.
   But that has their own implications when the site does get global
   connectivity or merge with another company and we are at NAT again.

And on this list have been named:

 - Merging networks, then using NATs because the address space
   is not unique.
   -> Use public IP space from your upstream.
      If you are not big enough for your own TLA you apparently
      haven't got a big or own network so renumbering
      should not be much of a pain. Another option: Multihoming.

 - My printer can be reached from the internet.
   -> Use a firewall; NAT won't 'protect' you.

Any others?

BTW: let me note that I know of a certain hospital with a /16 IPv4
and all their heartmonitoring and other surveilance apparatus
are using IP's out of that /16. With one big, good configured,
firewall at the gate and ofcourse nice VLAN's which don't even
allow packets from those VLAN's to come even close to the internet.
Now I quickly hear a "why do they have a public /16", because it's
globally unique and they can easily merge with another hospital
or organization and don't have to 'fear/uncertainty/doubt' that
their address spaces will ever collide. Oh and for the question
of how much v6 they would need: a single /48 would suffice as
it would allow 65535 networks or quite possibly VLAN's. And yes
they could receive that from their current upstream which also
delivers the /16 to their doorstep.

It's kinda cheating because it's internet from an NREN but
even then it's a reallife version of what is done with IPv4
and how it can be done with IPv6. Problem in IPv4
is simply that you can't get the space, but it will simply
have to change otherwise expanding the address space to
128 bits is futile and we can stay at the non-e2e NATted IPv4.
With all the problems which come along with that...

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Mike Saywell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:30:08 +0000

>    -> Use a firewall; NAT won't 'protect' you.

Well, there's my original reason...

 - My network is operator independant but I'm not a multi-national company
 or an ISP (thus not in a position to obtain address space directly from
 a registry).

Also...

 - Ad-hoc networks become restricted to link local addresses and thus
 a single flat subnet.

The latter is perhaps covered by the appendix in the draft, but I do
not beleive the former has been addressed.

Cheers,

Mike

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:20:42 +0200

> I don't like taking into account money in technical matters.
>
Welcome to the eral world, not the lab or academic world.
> delivers the /16 to their doorstep.
Your explination seems to take into account the pre IPv6 autoconfigure
options which are supposed to make this merger or provider change eaiser to
handle. They used the IPv4 space as they did because there was nothing
better, but what we are supposed to be doing is providing this bigger better
plan.

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:09:12 +0100

> Welcome to the eral world, not the lab or academic world.

Technicalities have nothing to do with money.

The fact that one can't get their own TLA does somehow has
to do with money though -> you are not big enough and you don't
deserve a entry in the DFZ.

> options which are supposed to make this merger or provider 
> change eaiser to handle.

Hmm are there any "pre IPv6 autoconfigure options" that make it easier?
I can only name one: DHCP. Are there any others? Not that it matters
much because renumbering is a pain even if you can change the prefix
easily there are many other things one has to change.

> They used the IPv4 space as they did
> because there was nothing better,

What would have been better than this?

> but what we are supposed to be
> doing is providing this bigger better plan.

That address space is fully used, never checked out how much
network connected computer equipment there is in a hospital?
Also you might want to realize that 

Could you eloborate on 'bigger better plan'?

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:39:19 +0100

> > related to NATs, which are being discussed for deprecation also...

<SNIP>

>  - My network is operator independant but I'm not a multi-national
>    company or an ISP (thus not in a position to obtain address space 
>    directly from a registry).

Sitelocals have nothing to do with this, as you apparently want
globally reachable address space. Effectively this means you are
an endsite, thus get space from you upstream.

And the real solution for you lies in Multihoming to make sure
your operator independency is guaranteed.

> not beleive the former has been addressed.

This is indeed mostly covered by the appendix.
I actually rather see a seperate:
'disjunct non-globaly routable address registry'
as a solution here. Eg a RIR where one can request space from the
site local addresses. Thus making them at least globally unique.
I do see a reason for that kind of address space. But basically
this is the same for ASn's, MAC's, EUI-64 and IPv4 space.

Greets,
 Jeroen