Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Int-area] draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues (OPSAREA WG)

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:27 +0100

Hi Marla, Leo,

Leaving the question about intarea vs. opsarea to one side, here are 
some comments on the document:

It's a nice review, thanks for putting it together.

Section 3 - Where are these residential and corporate networks where 
'peer to peer communication is not needed'?

Section 5.2 - I'm struggling to understand why it's 'likely' that there 
will be networks consuming whole /8s in 12 month periods for private 
addressing purposes. If there were networks with that much need for 
private addressing, we'd have been hearing complaints about how net10 is 
too small way before now, right?

This wording in section 4.1 on solving the problem with IPv6 is rather coy:
    "In some cases implementing a new network protocol on a very large 
network takes more time than is available, based on network growth and 
the proportion of private space that has already been used.  In these 
cases, there is a call for additional private address space that can be 
shared by all network operators."

Let's be clear about this:

'Some network operators are complaining today that they do not have time 
to implement IPv6 on their network before they run out of private space. 
These operators are calling for additional private address space to be 
made available...'

Regards,
Mat

On 24/09/2009 17:31, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Dear INTAREA WG,
>
> Leo Vegoda and I wrote this draft  in response to an increasing rate of questions about the possibility of  creating new private IPv4 address space. We have requested that the OPSAREA WG  adopt it as a WG document. Please comment on the document in that WG.
>
> Abstract
>
>     When a private network or  internetwork grows very large it is
>     sometimes not  possible to address it using private IPv4 address
>     space.   This document describes the problems faced by those  networks,
>     the available options and the issues involved  in assigning a new
>     block of private IPv4 address  space.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-01
>
> Many  thanks,
>
> Marla Azinger&
> Leo Vegoda
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Leo Vegoda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:28:32 -0700

Hi Mat,

Thank you for your comments.

On 25/09/2009 6:45, "Matthew Ford" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]

> 'peer to peer communication is not needed'?

It is not uncommon for some network operators to restrict the use of
peer-to-peer technologies either within their own network or across its
borders. In enterprises this is sometimes part of a security policy. For
instance some financial companies are required to record all incoming and
outgoing voice calls and so disallow peer-to-peer VoIP services.

In ISP networks there is sometimes a policy or technology that restricts
peer-to-peer technologies, whether for revenue protection reasons or
otherwise, forcing most IP traffic via proxies and caches. One example of
this is the image compression used by many cellular data networks.

> too small way before now, right?

We have both spoken to network operators who know that they have a need for
very large amounts of address space over short time frames but are sitting
on the requests for as long as possible. That being said, it is not unknown
for networks to be allocated whole /8s in one go. For instance, APNIC
allocated 126.0.0.0/8 to Softbank.
 
Another example of a statement of need is the recent (now abandoned) APNIC
policy proposal (prop-058-v001) "Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address
space among LIRs". 

> These operators are calling for additional private address space to be

We could change the wording to something more direct but I would personally
prefer not to use the word "complaining" as I don't think I have heard any
complaints, just proposals and concerns.

Kind regards,

Leo & Marla