Subject: RE: (ngtrans) private networks under 6to4-04

From: "Klein, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 09:45:43 +0300

Greg, 

Your answer scares the hell out of me. I am looking at a network with will
grow to over 1000 sites in under 5 years,  all of them riding on a private
network (not the internet), based on your answer:
	>> Thus when I have my 100 sites I would then need to
	>> register for my own public prefix as if I were an ISP. Rather
than using a

	>No. You would obtain a public prefix for every site.

means that I not only will have to get an address for my network (possibly
bought from an ISP without connecting to the Internet) but then do the same
for all 1000 sites. This seems to be much worse a problem than the running
out of addresses that the current IPv4 is facing. Just think that any
international company will have to register for a Public prefix for each
site. Minolta has over 50 sites in the US alone, and they are not the
largest company out there.

This needs to be considered, because many companies have one registered
address at their main site, and then act as an "ISP" to their various sites
via their Intranets. This would result in some real complicated routing
tables and purchases.

As to the availability of an address per person for the foreseeable future,
this would not be the case. It would be like phone numbers per person: one
for the home phone (computer via ISP) and one for the work phone (computer
from their company) and one for their cell phone (from their phone company
as WAP phones each get an address) this would mean that it is 3 addresses
per person. What happens once we are connecting their car, or microwave (and
other home appliances as Microsoft wants)? 

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Maxwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 6:48 PM
To: Klein, Eric
Cc: Keith Moore; Brian E Carpenter; Sowmini Varadhan;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: (ngtrans) private networks under 6to4-04 

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Klein, Eric wrote:

> Greg,
> 
> I agree with Keith, I am looking for private networks that will not be
> connected to any ISP. 

I'm not sure of what procdure there is for obtaining non-isp-agretted
global prefixes. There should be one.. You'll need to reprefix if you want
to connected the disconnected network to the Internet if you have one, but
not to peer with other networks.

Hmm. Does anyone know if any consideration was made for non-globally
reachable sites to have global prefixes prefixes for the purposes of
peering? (i.e. "I don't want to connect my network to the internet, just a
bunch of other simmlar networks (who may or may not be on the internet)
and I don't care about route table growth among these sites so aggreation
is not important").

> Thus when I have my 100 sites I would then need to
> register for my own public prefix as if I were an ISP. Rather than using a

No. You would obtain a public prefix for every site.

> private range for internal connectivity and registered addresses where
> Interconnectivity would be required. Thus at most I would need 1 NAT
> conversion with only one Registered address persite or per overall
network.

Why bother with the NAT, you get one prefix per site then all equipment at
the site gets an address, you advertise your prefix to your peers.

> Or is it your recommendation that every company go and request their own
> Public prefix for every computer at their sites? If so then you loose any

No, not one prefix every computer. I don't know what any of my computers
would do with 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 (a /48) IP addresses.

> gain in addresses, as every organization or company will have to request a
> public prefix based on their anticipated growth at all sites. 

You get one prefix per site, or perhaps one prefix per company and use the
/48 or /80 per site.

> This would reduce the available addresses almost as fast as the current
> IPv4.

Hardley. There are enough prefixes available to get every person on earth 
a prefix for the long forseeable future.

---

From: Greg Maxwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 08:45:40 -0400 (EDT)

> largest company out there.

So.. You are telling me that you have 1000 sites which are disconnected
from the Internet? That Minolta has no internet access in their over 50
sites?

Excuse me, but I find that very hard to believe.
 
> via their Intranets. This would result in some real complicated routing

Their main site recieves a /48 from their provider. They assign out /64s
to their subnets (sites) (using 16bits for internal structure). Tada.

IPv6 stops the distruction of globally unique addressing. You do not have
private addressing, and you do not want private addressing, unless you
happen do be a networking support vendor who makes big bucks supporting
unnessassarly complex and fragile networks.

> other home appliances as Microsoft wants)? 

No I said: "There are enough prefixes available to get every person on
earth a prefix for the long forseeable future."

Thus I ment giving each person a /64. Unless single people typically have
more then 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 net phones, tosters,
wap phones, etc you will not have a problem.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 09:18:36 -0500

Eric,

IPv6 has enough address space for the scenarios you describe. Run the numbers
and you will see; this was one of the design criteria.

As for your problem, it's a valid point that should be brought up with
the IP address registries at some point. There is no shortage of address
space; it's just that the current assignment policies assume that 
addresses are always delegated via ISPs. We don't have a policy for
address assignment to disconnected networks, and maybe we should.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org 
Attend INET 2000: http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
Non-IBM email: [email-masked]