[ipv6-wg] RE: address-policy-wg (ipv6-wg digest, Vol 1 #271 - 11 msgs)

>Oliver Bartels:

>If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming
>and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for
>those who requires this functionallity.
>
>Thus they won't use IPv6.
>
>Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
>
>And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium
>size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not
>providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
>
>A technical playground for technically interested people.

My project requires a few millions of IPv6 addresses. The application has to:
1. avoid renumbering of the network
2. keep allocated addresses for an extended period of time

Current ARIN allocation schema: ARIN -> LIR -> End User does not make much sence because to get addresses I:
- either have to become a LIR, which I may not necessarily want, or
- the entire application depends on fortunes of a third party (LIR), which is a prohibitive risk factor for the investment

On the other side I am willing to "rent" addresses from a registry (ARIN) and return the allocation when it is no longer needed.

Now, how do we change the current address allocation policy which kills IPv6 in its cradle?

Thank you,

Peter Sherbin
416 353-5917

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of ipv6-
>wg-request at ripe.net
>Sent: November/25/ 2005 06:00
>To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
>Subject: ipv6-wg digest, Vol 1 #271 - 11 msgs
>
>Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to
>	ipv6-wg at ripe.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	ipv6-wg-request at ripe.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Florian Weimer)
>   2. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Oliver Bartels)
>   3. closed network and need for global uniqe IP space (Roger Jorgensen)
>   4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Roger Jorgensen)
>   5. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Roger Jorgensen)
>   6. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Andre Oppermann)
>   7. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Andre Oppermann)
>   8. Re: closed network and need for global uniqe IP space (Gert Doering)
>   9. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] closed network and need for
>       globa	l uniqe IP space (Roger Jorgensen)
>  10. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] closed network and need for globa	l
>uniqe IP space (Gert Doering)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de>
>To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>Cc: Lea Roberts <lea.roberts at stanford.edu>,  address-policy-wg at ripe.net,  ipv6-
>wg at ripe.net,  roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:58:04 +0100
>
>* Roger Jorgensen:
>
>> Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI?
>> They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are
>> doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space.
>
>I'm a relative newcomer to this area.  Could you give a pointer to
>some explanation *why* the IPv6 address space size causes this
>problem?
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 2
>From: "Oliver Bartels" <oliver at bartels.de>
>To: "ipv6-wg at ripe.net" <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>,
>   "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>,
>   "Roger Jorgensen" <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:22:24 +0100
>Reply-To: "Oliver Bartels" <oliver at bartels.de>
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>
>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>>Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI?
>
>The better solution is the enemy of the good solution.
>
>If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming
>and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for
>those who requires this functionallity.
>
>Thus they won't use IPv6.
>
>Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
>
>And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium
>size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not
>providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
>
>A technical playground for technically interested people.
>
>>They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are
>>doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space.
>
>Could you please explain this a bit more in detail ?
>To me this sounds like "engines will never fly".
>
>>Last I checked around there were some promissing new proposal on the
>>way for how to solve this very basic problem.
>
>Could you please be a bit more verbose.
>
>>And in the meantime, drop
>>the thought about multihoming and PI space, start to think about other
>>ways to use the possibility IPv6 give us.
>
>Hmm, please let me translate:
>"Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single
>horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving,
>start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car
>gives us."
>
>Sound like newspeak:
>If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem.
>
>Best Regards
>Oliver
>
>
>
>Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
>oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0
>
>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:12:35 +0100 (CET)
>From: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>cc: roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: [ipv6-wg] closed network and need for global uniqe IP space
>
>Sorry for cross-posting but not sure where it really belong...
>-----------
>
>Hi,
>
>First, the question is more, what is the correct way of dealing with
>situation like this?
>
>
>
>
>I work for a entity with a big and closed network where security and
>being closed came first. We're not governement but we have our mandate
>defined by them.
>Our only connection to Internet are through several uplinks with few
>public IP where we run proxy solution for the little traffic that are
>allowed to hit internet. Are in reality no incoming routes to us, and none
>out.
>Internal we use RFC1918 IP space,(private IP) and we for now have enough
>IP space but we are experience conflicts between IP space when connecting
>to other big closed network. Not to forget the size, we will probably run
>out of IP space to... (and I know others have run out of RFC1918 space on
>their internal network)
>
>
>Most would suggest request a /48 or bigger from your uplink right now and
>that's not going to work for several reasons:
>* size, just one of bigger sites connected probably need more than a /48
>just for themself, and we have several of them, and alot of smaller
>sites/network. We're probably talking /32 or more if I have to guess.
>
>* scalability, we could of course get /48 and break the /64 boundary,
>a thought I seriously hate. But that will give us other kind of problems,
>sites needing a /64 or more due to some equipment or so...
>
>* there are other BIGGER network of the same type.
>
>* control over who is using what IP and where etc... as said above,
>security and being closed are probably the two most important factors for
>us.
>
>* need global unique IP's since we're connecting to other network of the
>same type, and NAT are not really the way we want to go with IPv6
>
>... and probably more I can't remember right now.
>
>
>The solutions aren't really that tricky but let me mention a few
>options...
>* Site local would have solved our problem BUT it's obsolite, quite
>stupid really.
>
>* just take a prefix and use it... this will give us problem in the future
>due to not being unique.
>
>* extensiv usage of NAT, eh do we really want to even consider THAT for
>IPv6?
>
>* become LIR and request the needed IP space.
>
>* let one of our uplinks request the IP space for us.
>
>
>
>I'm in favour of the last two options, any of them... and they are as I
>see it the really two options as things are now. Any thoughts? comments?
>
>
>
>--
>
>------------------------------
>Roger Jorgensen              |
>rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
>http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:36:25 +0100 (CET)
>From: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de>
>cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net, ipv6-wg at ripe.net, roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>
>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Roger Jorgensen:
>>
>> > Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI?
>> > They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are
>> > doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space.
>>
>> I'm a relative newcomer to this area.  Could you give a pointer to
>> some explanation *why* the IPv6 address space size causes this
>> problem?
>
>Just do the math yourself and consider all possibilities and how the IPv4
>space are used... but some numbers
>
>- the address space is 128bit.
>- we have a 64bits host prefix at the lower end.
>- the above give us 64bits of network numbers, that's quite a few billions
>of networks. BUT
>- the /48 boundary leaving us with a usable globaly network space of 48bit
>- from the 48bits only a /8 are usable as it is now, the other 7 /8 are
>reserved for the future.
>
>The absolute max global routing table would by this be 40bits, of
>course the real one are alot smaller. That one is closer to 32bits, and
>that is STILL A huge number, probably more close to 20bits of entries.
>
>
>
>a last comment: the entire idea behind /64 and /48 will cause IPv6 to fail
>as it is now. Odd as it is, we don't have enough IP space in IPv6. Sure it
>will last 10, maybe 15-20 years, but that did IPv4 to......
>
>
>
>--
>
>------------------------------
>Roger Jorgensen              |
>rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
>http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:55:54 +0100 (CET)
>From: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>To: Oliver Bartels <oliver at bartels.de>
>cc: "ipv6-wg at ripe.net" <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>,
>        "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>,
>        roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>
>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
><snip>
>> If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming
>> and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for
>> those who requires this functionallity.
>>
>> Thus they won't use IPv6.
>>
>> Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
>>
>> And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium
>> size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not
>> providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
>>
>> A technical playground for technically interested people.
>
>a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still
>thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6.
>
>Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors
>to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and
>vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was
>suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to
>understand.
>
>Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to
>give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy
>for them to switch providers as they see fit.
>
>
>
><snip>
>>
>> Hmm, please let me translate:
>> "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single
>> horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving,
>> start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car
>> gives us."
>>
>> Sound like newspeak:
>> If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem.
>
>for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real
>solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those
>possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers etc,
>then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us
>multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create
>connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the
>session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything
>either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it
>use the extended header of IPv6.
>
>That's just ONE of many possible ways...
>
>
>
>(1) it's a master thesis writting by a student related to University of
>Tromsø as part of the Pasta project, www.pasta.cs.uit.no
>
>--
>
>------------------------------
>Roger Jorgensen              |
>rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
>http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:58:43 +0100
>From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann at networx.ch>
>To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>CC: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net,
> 	ipv6-wg at ripe.net, roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>
>Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > * Roger Jorgensen:
>> >
>> > > Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI?
>> > > They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are
>> > > doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space.
>> >
>> > I'm a relative newcomer to this area.  Could you give a pointer to
>> > some explanation *why* the IPv6 address space size causes this
>> > problem?
>>
>> Just do the math yourself and consider all possibilities and how the IPv4
>> space are used... but some numbers
>>
>> - the address space is 128bit.
>> - we have a 64bits host prefix at the lower end.
>> - the above give us 64bits of network numbers, that's quite a few billions
>> of networks. BUT
>> - the /48 boundary leaving us with a usable globaly network space of 48bit
>> - from the 48bits only a /8 are usable as it is now, the other 7 /8 are
>> reserved for the future.
>>
>> The absolute max global routing table would by this be 40bits, of
>> course the real one are alot smaller. That one is closer to 32bits, and
>> that is STILL A huge number, probably more close to 20bits of entries.
>>
>> a last comment: the entire idea behind /64 and /48 will cause IPv6 to fail
>> as it is now. Odd as it is, we don't have enough IP space in IPv6. Sure it
>> will last 10, maybe 15-20 years, but that did IPv4 to......
>
>You post is still pretty content-free.  You're waving with your hand
>but what do you propose exactly?  I've posted my proposals under "Andre's
>guide to fix IPv6".  When do you with yours?
>
>--
>Andre
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:02:45 +0100
>From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann at networx.ch>
>To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>CC: Oliver Bartels <oliver at bartels.de>,
> 	"ipv6-wg at ripe.net" <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>,
> 	"address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>,
> 	roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>
>Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote:
>> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming
>> > and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for
>> > those who requires this functionallity.
>> >
>> > Thus they won't use IPv6.
>> >
>> > Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
>> >
>> > And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium
>> > size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not
>> > providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
>> >
>> > A technical playground for technically interested people.
>>
>> a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still
>> thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6.
>
>We're thinking Real World(TM).
>
>> Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors
>> to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and
>> vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was
>> suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to
>> understand.
>>
>> Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to
>> give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy
>> for them to switch providers as they see fit.
>
>That's only part of the reasoning.  Customers don't want to be locked
>in to any one ISP.  They want to have bargaining power which only comes
>with the ability to switch ISPs at will.
>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Hmm, please let me translate:
>> > "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single
>> > horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving,
>> > start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car
>> > gives us."
>> >
>> > Sound like newspeak:
>> > If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem.
>>
>> for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real
>> solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those
>> possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers etc,
>> then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us
>> multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create
>> connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the
>> session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything
>> either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it
>> use the extended header of IPv6.
>
>Yea, that's known as SCTP.
>
>> That's just ONE of many possible ways...
>
>You're only handwaiving and saying "no".  We are looking for ways to fit
>IPv6 to the reality of how millions of people and corporations use and
>want to use the Internet, technically and commercially.
>
>--
>Andre
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:18:46 +0100
>From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
>To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net, address-policy-wg at ripe.net, roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] closed network and need for global uniqe IP space
>
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:12:35AM +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> The solutions aren't really that tricky but let me mention a few
>> options...
>> * Site local would have solved our problem BUT it's obsolite, quite
>> stupid really.
>
>That's why there are ULA ("unique local addresses") now.  They should
>fit your needs pretty well - as much addresses as you want, and the
>guarantee to be not officially assigned to anyone.
>
>Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
>--
>Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  81421
>
>SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
>D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:25:07 +0100 (CET)
>From: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>To: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
>cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net, address-policy-wg at ripe.net, roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] closed network and need for
> globa	l uniqe IP space
>
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:12:35AM +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> > The solutions aren't really that tricky but let me mention a few
>> > options...
>> > * Site local would have solved our problem BUT it's obsolite, quite
>> > stupid really.
>>
>> That's why there are ULA ("unique local addresses") now.  They should
>> fit your needs pretty well - as much addresses as you want, and the
>> guarantee to be not officially assigned to anyone.
>
>what about the other part about globaly unique when we connect to other
>network of the same type?
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>------------------------------
>Roger Jorgensen              |
>rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
>http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:38:44 +0100
>From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
>To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>, ipv6-wg at ripe.net,
>  address-policy-wg at ripe.net, roger at jorgensen.no
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] closed network and need for globa
>	l uniqe IP space
>
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:25:07AM +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:12:35AM +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> > > The solutions aren't really that tricky but let me mention a few
>> > > options...
>> > > * Site local would have solved our problem BUT it's obsolite, quite
>> > > stupid really.
>> >
>> > That's why there are ULA ("unique local addresses") now.  They should
>> > fit your needs pretty well - as much addresses as you want, and the
>> > guarantee to be not officially assigned to anyone.
>>
>> what about the other part about globaly unique when we connect to other
>> network of the same type?
>
>The idea is that ULAs are random-generated in a way that makes it "fairly
>unlikely" that you end up in an address collision.  But there is no
>guarantee, of course.
>
>There is also a second sort of ULAs that are globally unique but still
>private, but as far as I know, there is no registry yet that will hand
>them out.  So these can't be used yet.
>
>Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
>--
>Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  81421
>
>SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
>D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234
>
>
>
>
>End of ipv6-wg Digest