Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:17:55 -0500 (EST)

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>

    >> Let's assume ... that a large part of the Internet is going to
    >> continue to be IPv4-only. So, what's the functional difference between:

    >> - A host which has an IPv6 only address, which it cannot use .. to
    >> comunicate directly with IPv4-only hosts out on the global Internet.

    >> - A host which has an IPv4 local-only address, which it cannot use
    >> .. to comunicate directly with other IPv4 hosts out on the global
    >> Internet.

    > that the former can communicate with all other nodes with globally
    > reachable IPv6 addresses, without having to borrow a global IPv4
    > address to do so?
    > ... but it *is* a functional difference, and that was what you asked
    > for, Noel....

That an IPv6 host could communicate with other IPv6 hosts without use of a
borrowed IPv4 address (assuming contiguous IPv6 packet tranmission
connectivity of some sort) is (or ought to be) obvious - but unrelated to the
point I was making with my rhetorical question.

The point of said question being, as you are no doubt aware, to shed light on
the exact question you posed: "whether [there] is a *significant* functional
difference". I too left it (and will leave it now) as an exercise for the
reader to figure out.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Nov 2004 02:02:18 +0000

>     >> continue to be IPv4-only. ...

you've lost me.  where will growth occur?  two variables: "nat?" and
"stack?"  so, six possibilities:

	nat?	stack?
        ----    ------
	nat	v4
	nat     v6
	nat     v4+v6
	nonat   v4
	nonat   v6
	nonat   v4+v6

given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the relative
ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses or v6 tunnels
in v4 campuses, there is no incentive to do nat/v4 any more, and precious
little incentive to do nonat/v4.  growth can be expected to occur only in
the other four tuples, with most falling in nonat/v4+v6 and nat/v4+v6.
not only growth of new hosts but metagrowth by upgrade of existing hosts.

therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years, the majority
of services that anybody will want to access will be v4+v6 reachable, and
it will be realistic to consider provisioning first nat/v6 and then nonat/v6
endhosts.

very shortly thereafter, v4-only hosts will decline in value, both on the
server side and the client side (and both sides of peer-to-peer).

v4 will last as long as it's useful.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:26:07 +0100

Good analysis (however there are probably 9 possibilities if a "newbox" was 
to be proposed by some smart person). This scenario is technically logic. 
But OSI, ATM, ISDN, etc shown us the market is not always logic.

At 03:02 18/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

>in v4 campuses, ...

Yes. But may be more as long as there is nothing for better thant an "IPv4 
with longer addresses".

Let consider there would be a Consumers Organizations and Users At-large 
Committe (COUAC) as one of the IETF entities, sharing into the Internet 
standard process in due form and time  - my approach since long before IETF 
started. What would they ask for would be probably termed totally 
differently. They would probably talk of "smart-plug" (the origin of the 
word "plug-in" I know is Dupont's Project Manager shouting in 1984 he did 
not care about protocols and all he wanted was a plug, a smart plug if it 
had to be, but a plug). And they would welcome the transition to a simpler 
and ubiquitous "data-jack".

How they would be built, they do not care if it works, if there is no 
hassle like registering, waiting, paying for this and that, and it can do 
what they want, i.e. to support their everywhere/everyone to 
everywhere/everyone relations in just (radio) pluging-in.

The least they want to hear is "relative ease of acquiring v6 address 
space" even least than "relative ease to delpoy". This is what we think 
great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a permanent 
numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in powering up.

You know, just like a mobile number. (what we discuss here is antedelluvian 
for them. Just like using an operator to phone).

This is for example what the French FCC is investigating in public 
questionnaire right now, and I suppose they are not alone. A number users 
will get at birth or creation (with additional  ones if they buy 
them);    Their network national ID, warranted by their law so they can use 
it in contracts, in life support services, in commercial relations. They do 
not want smart solutions, they want sure, secure, simple, stable, real life 
services for middle-aged house-wife, elders and kids.

IPv6 will win the day it will not be managed by IETF, not by ICANN, not by 
RIRs, but by Govs. and will belong to the international law and treaties. 
The customer is not the user. The customer are 192 States law makers. Show 
Govs that IPv6 is a sovereignty field for them and not for the US Gov 
alone, they will enforce it immediately (and this is simple to achieve). 
Today they see IPv6 as another "USivernal" semi-obligation. The day it is a 
free governement protected and accepted service, it will become Universal. 
This is just what ITU is investigating : that will please them. All the 
more than with its NGN work, it speaks a language they can understand and 
which appeals on them.

Let face it, today ITU is far more promoting IPv6 than ICANN and IETF. And 
this is good; as Harald puts it: IPv6 is a finished product to be managed 
ouside of the IETF (and of ICANN IMHO, hence of IANA, now IANA has become 
just an "ICANN function").

Just consider the difference of commercial impact between presenting IPv6 as :
- IPv4 with longer addresses
- structured addresses under TCP/IP

80% of the people buy magazines in kiosk for their cover. The IPv6 current 
cover is not appealing.

jfc

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:08:11 -0500

--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a
> permanent numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in
> powering up.
>
> You know, just like a mobile number.

you know, there was this newfangled thingie invented a few months ago 
called a "name".... not only can you get it for nearly-free, it's actually 
written in letters so that you can tell someone else what it is without 
having to Spell Out All These Numbers.... gosh, I've even heard of people 
REMEMBERING them..... sometimes even on the first try.....

and oh yes, you can use it with some fancy stuff back on the Internet to 
look up stuff like those silly numbers you never want to look at again... I 
think they call it the Domain Name System or something....

Numbers are for losers and technologists.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:41:36 +0100

On Nov 18 2004, at 10:26 Uhr, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> if there is no hassle like [...] paying for this and that

I'm a bit afraid there are players in this game that won't let us 
completely eliminate that hassle.

Obviously, a situation where a /48 can only be obtained at business 
rates leads us straight back into NAT land.
This is one place where a little bit of legislation (EU regulation) 
might actually be useful, but then hoping this would be done right is 
really hoping too much.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:44:39 -0000

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand Wrote [18 November 2004 18:08]

So I take it that you are the only Alvestrand in Norway?  That must be nice
for you.  But names are very rarely  unique outside of a very limited
context.  When the "naming scheme" is changed so that the context is
specified along with the name, you end up with a scheme that is just as hard
(if not harder) to remember.  Is it easyer to remember a telephone number
itself (ignoring personal phone-books), or the exact spelling of someones
name, the the exchange they are on, the country they are in and do you say
"America", "The States", "The United States", "USA" etc), the exact spelling
of their name (and due to your "inernational presence", I would place a bet
that at least one person in the past has mis-spelt your name "Harold" when
addressing you directly).

As a thought - Does anyone know the number of DNS registrations in the .US
ccTLD?

Jools.

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:49:51 -0500

On 11/17/2004 9:02 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years

How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?

Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has been with access more than anything else. Usually we
see adoption go through big-org to small-org to consumer [according to
price and availability], but as of right now there are still very few
big-orgs interested in it, and almost no early adopters in the small-org
and individual sectors [even though IPv4 has been "unavailable" to them
for many years now]. Demand is not driving adoption, because there is no
demand. From all evidence. it actually looks like people would prefer to
reinvent IPv4 connectivity as the first choice. no matter how much
friction you put on it with allocation rules and whiatnot.

This is not primarily a technology problem, and more about figuring ways
to convince ~Linksys that their SOHO products need to support IPv6, and
also convincing ~Comcast to provide the addresses. Why do they not
already? Too much support cost probably, given the limited pool of
early-adopter technologists. Okay then, how do we help get the costs
lower? Rinse and repeat.

Five years would be reasonable if we were actually starting on these kinds
of efforts today. Not starting means that it will always be five years out
of reach.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:59:19 -0500

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:02:18 GMT, Paul Vixie said:

> little incentive to do nonat/v4.

*I* can get v6 connectivity easily (heck, I just boot my laptop and *wham*, as
soon as I contact the network I get handed 2001:468:c80:2181:202:2dff:fe5c:1148/64
(And that's on my wireless card, no less.. ;)

Now, having done that, I can either jump through lots of hassles configuring
a 6to4 proxy, or I can just type www.cnn.com in the browser window.

It isn't just whether *I* can/have done it, it's *also* about whether the resource
I'm trying to contact sees ipv6 as something that needs doing.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:20:44 +0000

> > given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the
> > relative ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses
> > or v6 tunnels in v4 campuses, there is no incentive to do nat/v4 any
> > more, and precious little incentive to do nonat/v4.
> 
> *I* can get v6 connectivity easily (heck, I just boot my laptop and ...
> 
> Now, having done that, I can either jump through lots of hassles
> configuring a 6to4 proxy, or I can just type www.cnn.com in the
> browser window.
> 
> It isn't just whether *I* can/have done it, it's *also* about whether
> the resource I'm trying to contact sees ipv6 as something that needs
> doing.

unless you're aware of different natural laws than i am, somebody will
have to go first.  i realize that there's more motivation in going
second, but still, somebody will have to go first, or by definition
nobody will be able to go second.

being first gets a whole lot easier as more dual-stack hosts come online,
thus requiring less motivation from those who could possibly be first.
(certainly less motivation than being first if it means runningv6-only
and finding a 6to4 proxy.)

so the "relative ease" of getting v6 address space and of running dual
stack really is directly relevant to whether v6 will ever reach "the
tipping point."

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Nov 2004 17:38:04 +0000

> How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?

forever.

> and the problem has been with access more than anything else. 

i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger than
all of ipv4.  geoff huston's note hit this on the head.  "even at /29..."

where are these endpoints now?  some are circling the field waiting for a
chance to land.  some are using NAT.  address space lifetime projections
don't see the whole game.  ipv4 is in end-of-life, and while there's some
chance of universal NAT (where ~every endpoint thinks it's in 10.0.0.0/8
and the global routing table is just used by each NAT to talk to the others)
it appears much more likely to me that ipv6, warts and all, will be used.

there is absolutely no chance that we'll all live out our lifetimes with
ipv4 as we've always known it.  and with the rocket boosters having been
applied to the ipv6 pig, it seems impossible to me that ipv6 will be bypassed
and something else will be created to replace ipv4 and be universally
deployed the way ipv4 has been.

so we can argue as to whether it's 5 years or 3 years or 10 years, and we
can argue about whether ipv6 is the best possible replacement for ipv4, and
we can argue about whether ipv6's warts can be fixed or whether we'll have
to live with them or throw it away and start over.  but ipv4 is in what the
product managers call "end of life", and i hope we're not arguing about that.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:20:59 -0500

On 11/18/2004 12:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger
> than all of ipv4.

Me too, but the sum total of these (both now and immediately foreseeable)
is "very few". I mean, I can site the corner cases too, but what does that
have to do with edge deployment?

> so we can argue as to whether it's 5 years or 3 years or 10 years, and
> we can argue about whether ipv6 is the best possible replacement for
> ipv4, and we can argue about whether ipv6's warts can be fixed or
> whether we'll have to live with them or throw it away and start over.
> but ipv4 is in what the product managers call "end of life", and i hope
> we're not arguing about that.

IPv6 is certainly inevitable in some form or another (at a minimum, its
current deployment levels are "inevitable"), but it's not inevitable
"everywhere" within a sub-decade window. It's kind of fun to think about
scenarios here (reinventing bang-path routing comes to mind) but I'm
trying to focus on what we ought to be working on to reduce deployment
friction. Granted, road-building isn't what the I* collective is good at
(or at least not since Postel stopped isssuing executive fiats) but it
would ultimately be far more productive, I think. I mean, we can try to
fix the problems that folks are having with it (especially including the
non-technical hurdles) or we can argue over whether 3% is better enough
than 2% to qualify as success, the latter of which seems to be the
preference around here.

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:30:38 +1200

>all of ipv4.  geoff huston's note hit this on the head.  "even at /29..."
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get 
assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below 
radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 
100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for every human, 
pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country....

Yes this is a NIC problem, but I wanted to let you know. APNIC is aware 
of the needs fo small countries in their constituency, I guess there is 
a similar problem in the carabean and other places...

Cheers

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Franck Martin
[email-masked]
"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question"
G. Bachelard

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:58:41 -0500 (EST)

Franck,

You cannot get allocations for the SOPAC countries?

> a similar problem in the carabean and other places...

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:07:32 +0100

At 19:08 18/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>look up stuff like those silly numbers you never want to look at again... 
>I think they call it the Domain Name System or something....
>

oh! Dear... was this written by Harald ????
What do you intent to say ? Until now you were the only one prefectly 
reasonable ....
oh! yes I know: today is Beaujolais nouveau.
jfc

BTW just made the count it was 249 months ago that I started using names 
made of a root, customer and host part. Is that what you refer to?

But you over looked the numeric names. If you know about datacoms (and 
Internet) history you know the part they plaid. And how we can praise 
Dominique Marchand for what she did with them.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:12:42 +0100

Sorry. I made a mistake, it was 313 months ago that I started using names 
made of a root, customer and host part. Robert Tréhin would know better (he 
was the one with Joe Rinde to introduce root names - or TLDs). Again if 
that is what you refer to. So old.
249 months ago is roughly when I started deploying numeric names.

So may be other used them before. Newfrangled is probably an euphemism.
jfc

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:24:12 -0500

On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:

>  For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can 
> get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are 
> below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of 
> less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for 
> every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country....

Just in case anybody here else thinks that the vastness of a /32 
presents a justification problem for applying for address space, let it 
be known that (under current RIR policies, APNIC included) this is not 
the case.

All an ISP (in Tuvalu or Fiji or Vanuatu or anywhere else) needs to do 
is say to APNIC "I am an ISP, and I have a plan to hook up 200 
customers with v6 in the next two years. Those customers will need 
addresses, so please give me a /32." The RIR might ask you a few 
questions about your plans, but assuming they sound plausible, the 
answer will be "yes, here you go."

None of the RIRs currently say "please justify why you need to be able 
to number devices in 4294967296 subnets, and why each of those subnets 
needs to be big enough to number 18446744073709551616 devices". If they 
did, nobody would have v6 address space today.

IPv6 and IPv4 allocation policies are different.

We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth month, or 
something :-)

Joe

---

From: Jon Allen Boone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:05:54 -0500

On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote:

>> get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries 
>> are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population 
>> of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for 
> presents a justification problem for applying for address space, let 
> it be known that (under current RIR policies, APNIC included) this is 
> not the case.
>
> needs to be big enough to number 18446744073709551616 devices". If 
> they did, nobody would have v6 address space today.
>
> We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth month, 
> or something :-)
>

And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be 
deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?

--jon

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:22:22 -0500 (EST)

> deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?

tunnels.

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:28:53 -0500

> deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?

End sites get addresses from ISPs, or use 6to4, or get direct 
assignments from RIRs if they qualify as operators of critical 
infrastructure.

Joe

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:50:35 +0000

> I'm trying to contact sees ipv6 as something that needs doing.

You make the assumption that people deploying IPv6 now want IPv6 to read
web pages.  In many cases, that's not the case.  You can in marketing speak
leverage legacy IP for that... ;)

Tim

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:36:11 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Jon" == Jon Allen Boone <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth
    >> month, or something :-)
    >> 

    Jon> And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully
    Jon> be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?

  a) from their ISP. IPv6 contains no provider-independant addressing
     at this point.

  b) by using 6to4, they get their own /48.

  If your ISP doesn't have IPv6, then they won't have addresses, so
you'll need a tunnel solution anyway. 6to4 is very good for this.

  One successful method that I've used is to get a tunnel from he.net,
set up the BGP listening, and use that tunnel for all 2001: addresses.
Run your own 6to4 converter at the edge.
  (Better to get a geographically significant tunnel, which I do elsewhere)

  That way, one routes through the tunnel to the 6bone, sending one's
2002: sourced data, which others then send back using whatever their
topologically closest 6to4 router. The irony is that, given sparse IPv6
network, 6to4 addresses most closely follow the topology, since they
follow the IPv4 network.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: Jon Allen Boone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:25:34 -0500

>   a) from their ISP. IPv6 contains no provider-independant addressing

   Well, clearly, this policy needs some significant work.  Please read 
what I wrote --- we're *assuming* the ISP doesn't support IPv6 and will 
"catch up" later when it's clear that they ought to.

> you'll need a tunnel solution anyway. 6to4 is very good for this.

   Well this sounds a bit more promising.  At home, behind Comcast, 
there's nary an IPv6 address to be found [beyond the link-local ones I 
get automatically].

>   (Better to get a geographically significant tunnel, which I do 

   These tunnels don't *require* BGP, do they?
--jon

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:12:29 -0500

On 19 Nov 2004, at 09:25, Jon Allen Boone wrote:

> what I wrote --- we're *assuming* the ISP doesn't support IPv6 and 
> will "catch up" later when it's clear that they ought to.

You seem to be assuming that the only ISP you can use is the one that 
provides you with v4 transit. People have been using other ISPs to gain 
v6 transit for almost as long as v6 has existed.

> there's nary an IPv6 address to be found [beyond the link-local ones I 

Small data point that may be interesting to some people: getting IPv6 
access on a modern Macintosh computer using 6to4 is as simple as 
selecting "Network Port Configurations" in the network preferences 
pane, and ticking "6to4". That's it -- instant dancing kame.

There seems to be a prevailing view that 6to4 is something that can 
only be set up by unix geeks or network engineers. For Macintosh users, 
at least, it's simple enough that I could easily talk my mother through 
setting it up.

Joe

---

From: Jon Allen Boone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:06:31 -0500

Many folks responding to this thread don't seem to be following the 
arguments very closely.

Let me summarize:
1.  Everyone agrees that the current situation is untenable.
I can't think of anyone who said it'll last forever.

2.  Some people think we've already run out of address space.

3.  Some people think we soon will.

4.  Everyone laments the brokenness of NAT-based solutions.

5. Some people think that we just need to wait a bit longer and IPv6 
will "tip" to the point that it sees widespread deployment.
   These folks seem to be gauging their expectations based on the 
deployment of the features in shipping products.  This appears to be a 
variation on the "if you build it, they will come" thought process that 
was prevalent during the 1990s.

6.  Some people also seem to think that widespread deployment of IPv6 
means no NAT.
   I'm not convinced of this.  If it doesn't happen, then currently 
broken services will stay broken.

7. Some people think that we have seen enough, IPv6 isn't going to take 
off and we need to start thinking hard about something else.
   I, for one, fall in this camp.  I don't think IPv6 will ever "take 
off".  My reasons are thus:

1.  Users don't care about IPv4/IPv6 - only providers do.  Sometimes, 
within a user organization, there is an IT department that cares, but 
that's because they are an enterprise-level provider.

2.  Providers don't provide IPv6 because they have no incentive to do 
so.  [The only counter to this I've seen presented in an article 
showing that a *manufacturer* provides the IPv6 capability in their 
cell phones.  But, as we see with BlueTooth (which has been much more 
widely adopted than IPv6, afaict), *service providers* such as Verizon 
Wireless feel perfectly free to not use - or even *remove* these 
capabilities.]

3.  Content [which is the only reason for users to demand that 
providers provide the service] that is IPv6 only is lacking.  There's 
lots of nice stuff that might be done *better* with IPv6 (or possibly 
even not done at all without IPv6), but I'm not aware of any spiffy 
service that I need/want/like that is IPv6 only.  Nor am I aware of a 
service that is currently not working because I'm behind an IPv4+NAT 
setup, which will magically start working if I use 6to4.  Please let me 
know if I'm wrong, because that would be fantastic!

   Legislation might force this change over.  Some have suggested that 
adoption of IPv6 in non-US countries is hindered by the perception that 
it is another US "standard" being forced on them.  Others still have 
suggested that you can play on the notion that now is the time to get 
in while you can still get addresses (before the US eats them all up).  
That's all well and good if it happens.  I don't think that the IETF 
should be waiting around for this day to come.

   Now, someone brought up an interesting perspective: that the end 
users would deploy IPv6 w/out support from their service providers, 
allowing the service providers to 'catch up' later.  I see a few 
problems with this notion:

1.  Users can't get IPv6 address space from registrars, who are trying 
to implement a policy beneficial to the service providers.
   This means that people are stuck using their existing IPv4 space in 
compatibility mode if they are to "route around their providers".

2.  Someone suggested the you simply use a different provider for IPv6 
than IPv4.
   Presumably, in this scenario, you get your address space from this 
new provider, then establish a 6to4 tunnel to them.  I mean, no one's 
seriously suggesting an organization throw real money down on yet 
another circuit to yet another provider just to get IPv6 connectivity 
for particular reason, right?  And, presumably, the IPv6 provider isn't 
actually *charging* for this service, right?

3.  Users don't care about IPv6.  If it's on and it just works, they'll 
use it.  Otherwise, they won't without some serious incentivizing.

> pane, and ticking "6to4". That's it -- instant dancing kame.

   It's a bit trickier than that - you have to *create* the 6to4 network 
port the first time.  But, once you've created it, it's just a matter 
of clicking the checkbox.

--jon

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:10:33 +0100

On 2004-11-18, at 10.26, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> questionnaire right now, and I suppose they are not alone. A number 
> users will get at birth or creation (with additional  ones if they buy 
> them);    Their network national ID, warranted by their law so they 
> can use it in contracts, in life support services, in commercial 
> relations. They do not want smart solutions, they want sure, secure, 
> simple, stable, real life services for middle-aged house-wife, elders 
> and kids.

I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long) 
persistent, well-spread unique personal identifiers are bad was general 
knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me 
wrong on that already.

> IPv6 will win the day it will not be managed by IETF, not by ICANN, 
> not by RIRs, but by Govs. and will belong to the international law and 
> treaties. The customer is not the user. The customer are 192 States 
> law makers. Show Govs that IPv6 is a sovereignty field for them and 
> not for the US Gov alone, they will enforce it immediately (and this 
> is simple to achieve). Today they see IPv6 as another "USivernal" 
> semi-obligation. The day it is a free governement protected and 
> accepted service, it will become Universal. This is just what ITU is 
> investigating : that will please them. All the more than with its NGN 
> work, it speaks a language they can understand and which appeals on 
> them.

> Let face it, today ITU is far more promoting IPv6 than ICANN and IETF. 
> And this is good; as Harald puts it: IPv6 is a finished product to be 
> managed ouside of the IETF (and of ICANN IMHO, hence of IANA, now IANA 
> has become just an "ICANN function").

I am going for the sake of argument to go along with your reasoning 
above (although I don't agree). Apparently there is something here to 
be gained, as we need to 'promote' a particular technology that is 
under control of intergovernmental treaties. First of all, what would 
the sales pitch be? I am seriously interested, and as you are arguing 
for this model you must have an answer. Second, if I understand you 
correctly above, you are implying this is not a 'free service' today, 
while it would be under the ITU, sanctioned by governments. Correct? In 
your view, how would allocations of IP addresses and ports, and 
protocol numbers be made? Last, how would a address policy process look 
like under the ITU and international treaties?

- - kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:36:07 +0100

On 2004-11-18, at 19.30, Franck Martin wrote:
>  Yes this is a NIC problem, but I wanted to let you know. APNIC is 
> aware of the needs fo small countries in their constituency, I guess 
> there is a similar problem in the carabean and other places...

The current entry barrier in terms of initial allocation policy is 
artificial and I think we al know that - and there are many talking 
about changing this. Let's hope we can get this over and done with 
fast.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:23:30 -0500

On 19 Nov 2004, at 15:06, Jon Allen Boone wrote:

> new provider, then establish a 6to4 tunnel to them.

No; if you use 6to4, you construct your own 2002::-covered address 
range using your 6to4 router's IPv4 address. You get your own /48 
without having to ask anybody else for it. There's a tunnel involved, 
but the endpoint (IPv4) addresses are automagically assigned (one is an 
address you have installed on your router already, and the other is a 
well-known anycast address).

Using a remote (not directly connected) provider for IPv6 transit 
usually involves a deliberately-plumbed tunnel, not an 
automagically-plumbed one. In that case the remote provider assigns PA 
addresses to you.

>   I mean, no one's seriously suggesting an organization throw real 
> money down on yet another circuit to yet another provider just to get 
> IPv6 connectivity for particular reason, right?

Tunnels don't cost real money. They cost pretend money.

There are performance pitfalls with plumbing things over tunnels. I 
personally dislike them; they make me twitchy. Don't let me 
inadvertently colour myself as some great tunnel proponent.

However, my point is that the argument "even if I wanted to, I can't 
use IPv6 because my ISP doesn't support it" should be marked down as 
"false, incorrect, rigourously debunked".

So the argument "I can't get IPv6 addresses because my provider doesn't 
have any to give me" is false, by extension. The trick with that one is 
to find a provider who can give some to you.

> And, presumably, the IPv6 provider isn't actually *charging* for this 
> service, right?

I'm not aware of any v6-over-tunnel providers who charge money.

>   It's a bit trickier than that - you have to *create* the 6to4 
> network port the first time.  But, once you've created it, it's just a 
> matter of clicking the checkbox.

Oh right, that rings a bell. Even with those three extra clicks, I 
still bet my mother could do it.

Joe

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:20:56 -0500

> knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me 

Sometimes, the political importance of Being Seen Doing Something outweighs
the ethical importance of Doing It Right.

You decide for yourself if I'm a paranoid cynic or just a realist - most of
the time, I can't tell the difference myself. :)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Jon Allen Boone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:16:54 -0500

> Tunnels don't cost real money. They cost pretend money.

It seems clear to me, based on this statement, that you have no concept 
of what your talking about.  Tunnels eat up resources - resources cost 
money.  Therefore, tunnels cost money.  You talk like someone who 
doesn't pay the bills.  You must be an engineer.  Or a student.

That issue aside, you have a tendency to talk past the point I'm 
raising - which is that no one is going to actually pay to put in yet 
another wide-area circuit just to support IPv6 for non-existent 
services that they can receive only via IPv6.

> "false, incorrect, rigourously debunked".

   Why are you arguing a strawman?  No one said you can't use IPv6 if 
your ISP doesn't support it.   Everyone knows it's possible - otherwise 
there never would have been a 6bone to begin with!

  The issue is whether or not it will become ubiquitous to a large 
enough degree that ISPs will begin to support it.

> So the argument "I can't get IPv6 addresses because my provider 
> doesn't have any to give me" is false, by extension. The trick with 
> that one is to find a provider who can give some to you.

   The 'trick' as you put it adds another level of difficulty in the way 
of the end-user adopting it.  Which weighs the scale against it ever 
being adopted in a wide-spread fashion.  When one wants to encourage 
adoption of a technology, one does not erect barriers to its adoption - 
unless exclusivity is a key component of the appeal in the first place. 
  Presumably, that is not so for IPv6.

> I'm not aware of any v6-over-tunnel providers who charge money.

   Yet.  If you think IPv6 tunnels will be free forever, then I can see 
there's not point talking with you about this issue as you have no 
grasp on the basic economics of technology adoption.

   If ISPs do not start offering native IPv6 support - and it achieves 
any kind of substantial adoption - v6 tunnels will become non-zero 
cost.  The more people do them, the more they will cost.  The higher 
the bandwidth pumped over them, the higher the cost.  When the traffic 
load becomes large enough that major tunnel providers spend dollars to 
hook together their equipment to run IPv6 natively to each other, the 
cost will go even higher.

   The only reason they're free now is because they don't get any 
substantial use.  In other words, there is no demand.

> still bet my mother could do it.

   In case it hasn't been made clear, the relative techno-savy of your 
mother has not be called into question by anyone, other than perhaps 
yourself.  Further, you might note, should you choose to actually 
*read* what I write, that I didn't ever disagree with you.  I just 
corrected an oversight on your part, no need to get snippy about it.  
Finally, we could turn this into a Mac OS X / Apple advocacy thread, 
but this isn't the appropriate forum.  Besides, then we'd have to be on 
the same side.

   Point in fact, I turned on 6to4 on my PowerMac.  Got a tunnel 
connection and everything.  So I enabled it on my iBook.  Nothing.  Not 
a stinking thing.  Now, what's the no-brainer way to get my 
auto-magically allocated /48 to work between my two devices locally?  
Or for me to get a tunnel from *both* of them simultaneously - I did 
mention I'm behind a NAT, didn't I?  Oh, yeah, then there's the wife's 
mac, the kids' mac and the linux server, not to mention the windows 
boxes....  good thing this stuff just "works" out of the box.

   No one's argued here that it's "dead simple' - except you.  I think 
things aren't quite as simple as you'd like to believe they are.  
Perhaps you should quit while you still think you're ahead.

   The point of the thread isn't to discuss how easy it is or isn't to 
configure IPv6.

   However, it's become clear that there's no having an open discussion 
about this deeply held believe some have that IPv6 is going to take off 
any day now.  Oh well, at least we got some decent Apple advocacy done.

--jon

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:08:18 -0500

On 19 Nov 2004, at 20:16, Jon Allen Boone wrote:

>>> money down on yet another circuit to yet another provider just to 
>>> get IPv6 connectivity for particular reason, right?
>>
> It seems clear to me, based on this statement, that you have no 
> concept of what your talking about.

I, too, have formed some perceptions about you, based on your 
contributions to this thread. May we both live long and productive 
lives.

The rest of your message contained many excited paragraphs in defence 
of some position you think I'm arguing against. In fact I was just 
trying to correct the mistake in your summary about 6to4, and the fact 
that you appeared to be suggesting that spending money on circuits was 
a requirement to get access to the v6 Internet, in the case where your 
local ISP doesn't provide v6 service.

Perhaps we can move on, now.

Joe

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:13:58 +0100

>knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me

I am not sure I understand the English of this remark. I suppose you mean 
that you thought if everyone known a user 's persistent number the user 
would be worried? If this is the case, it only makes my points that IETF 
lacks market studies and reporting from the end-users. This a general 
demand that Telephone companies hesitated to provide due to the complexity 
until mobiles came in. Now it is a simple common demand to have on fixed 
lines the same features as on mobiles (permanent and temporary numbers).

This does not mean that you are bound to a single number, the same you are 
not bound to a single mobile. Let not think "the users should do it the way 
I think", but "I am to permit the users to do it the way I never thought 
they would do it", because it is generally the way these people behave ....

Does this respond your remark?

>like under the ITU and international treaties?

OK. Until this threat I was embarrassed because I thought that "real world 
evidences" were too far away from IPv6 designers. When Quite - and Aaron 
confirmed - said that IPv6 was IPv4 with larger addresses, I started 
thinking that we could make it, even with NATs which belong to the IPv4 
world. Let consider what is new in IPv6 and where are the problems.

We have several propositions :
- IPv6=IPv4+longer addresses
- NGN is many things needing long addresses (may be /256) using IP as their 
core (ITU)
- IETF is accustomed to small ISP operators, the rest of the world 
deregulates big Telcos.
- there are 800 millions of Internet users and 1.3 billions of mobile owners.

NGN shows that the world (in general) is not opposed to the IP technology. OK.
Web deployment and mobiles show that the users have developed a brainware 
where names and numbers have their different roles which are not far from 
their technology purpose and that people know how to play with them. OK.
Everyone agrees that we need more addresses; so everything seems fine. 
Except that it does not catch. Why ?

I think it does not catch, because this is the old IPv4 model, that it 
still relies on ISPs and that if addresses are longer they still are far 
too short. Because they are managed by RIRs who have no societal and no 
political power. But mainly because we consider the wrong product: no one 
is interested in the Version 6 of the IP protocol. There are a lot of 
people interested in the management and political capacity to manage /128 
long addresses.

The real product is the addressing plan. And the reasons why no one is 
excited are that:

- these addresses are managed "a la IPv4", as a unique Vint Cerf's/ICANN 
numbering area. This is what they want to correct with ITU. I submit there 
is no conflict. IPv6 has 6 different numbering plans. Let say that 001 is 
for the US Vint's legacy and 011 for international. That Vint can manage 
the 001 area and the ITU the 011 area. This is status quo.

- now, the way ITU wants to manage the international digital address 
numbering plan is in using DCC (or the like). (DCC is data country code). 
The same as there are ccTLDs in naming. So Frank has no problem for his 
SOPAC islands. They are entitled as many addresses as others. Does that 
change anything for the RIRs and the routing? No, this is simple address 
management.

- the way the countries will manage their numbering space is up to them. 
But if I refer to the telephone solutions, my guess is that many will 
differentiate routing and addressing in a very simple way (and this is 
certainly what the ART (French FCC) wants to hear about - because this is 
what users want : IP addresses are to be independent from the ISP). This 
means that they will allocate national IDs that you will be able to use as 
a NetworkID or as a UserID. And you will probably get the UserID for free 
at birth or creation, probably additional ones on a small fee and you will 
pay for the routing to your NetworkID.

How does that fit into a /128? Very simply. The final global network 
address will result from the concatenation (probably described in 0-Z 
numbering) of :

- a numbering plan header (like 011) + may be one or two additional digits 
to qualify plans, documentation, anycast, multicast, and he type of 
service/network (like telephone, Internet, TV, Radio, Posts, etc. )
- DCC+national number as a Network ID. Global routing is made at this level.
- DCC+national number as a UserID. Network local routing is made on that one.
- users interfaces.

This means that when I subscribe to a network or another I will keep my 
same UserID in each network, but my number starts with the NetworkID of the 
access provider. So, if I concatenate the traffic of several ISP this makes 
no problem. I can even pay these ISP on the basis of the datagrams they 
carried. A mobile changing from network will be easily followed. The /128 
address of my French mobile when I travel in Korea will be will be 
011xx+KoreanISP+FrenchID. No different from having jefsey.com, jefsey.org, 
jefsey.net.

This means that everyone has an address for his web/mail, for broadcasting 
TV or cognitive radio, etc. You can discuss international agreements, 
establish treaties on content, on address-back (feed back on an address?) 
payment authentication, establish usage warranties and insurances, etc, 
etc. We are in regalian (Government role) business.

Obviously there are objections. And these objections are what has to be 
worked on to sell "IPv6".

0. there is no more way to make money worldwide because I have been given 
an Excel table to fill. IDs will be allocated by Govs the way they want. 
What will be paid to RIR, NIR or LIR will be their real service with QoS 
control. This calls probably for a new economic model.

1. there is no room enough in /64 as actually (if I understand well) /128 
addresses are just /32 addresses extended to /64 with a user subaddress 
payload. User addresses will probably requires /80 or /96. Less than half 
in the routing tables. But structuring may permit clever thinking.

2. there are much more needs to address virtual objects than just computer 
ports. So wee need to establish a numeric root of the numbering schemes 
accessible through the network, to give them an addressing capacity (this 
is what we called the Uninum proposition) of an unlimited size (their 
purpose is not necessarily to number network entities, but to number 
entities which can be reached through the network). They may eventually be 
supported by numeric names. These addresses will become more and more 
important as unique lingual and time independent references. But this is 
another aspects of the changes we needs.

I rushed this. I hope it is clear enough.
jfc

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:39:06 -0600

Thus spake "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> lines the same features as on mobiles (permanent and temporary numbers).

There is a huge difference between knowing someone's phone number and 
knowing their exact legal identity.  Phone numbers, even ones portable 
between carriers, are inherently temporary things.  And, let's not forget, 
many people pay their phone companies not to be listed in directories and 
pay again when too many people (or even a single ex) know their number.

MAC addresses were proposed for the lower 64 bits of IPv6 autoconfigured 
addresses, and privacy advocates threw an amazing tantrum about how that 
would lead to invasion of privacy -- and that just tied an address to the 
NIC of a particular computer, not to a publicly known legal identity.

> the 001 area and the ITU the 011 area. This is status quo.

If the IP routing infrastructure were regulated (as the telephone one is) so 
that all US ISPs had to carry for non-US routes was a single prefix, this 
would work.  Currently, it doesn't work that way, and many things would need 
to be changed for that to happen.

> pay for the routing to your NetworkID.

Why the heck should users care what their IP address is in the first place? 
They are not intended to be seen by users, and there is a user-friendly 
replacement called DNS that is manageable by end-users for their needs.

Addresses inherently represent position in the topology.  Any attempt to 
abstract addresses out of the topology will simply mean that a new, less 
transparent layer of addressing will be created underneath and a mapping 
mechanism will be added, increasing latency and decreasing reliability.

> same UserID in each network, but my number starts with the NetworkID of 
> the access provider. So, if I concatenate the traffic of several ISP this 
> makes no problem. I can even pay these ISP on the basis of the datagrams 
> they carried. A mobile changing from network will be easily followed. The 
> /128 address of my French mobile when I travel in Korea will be will be 
> 011xx+KoreanISP+FrenchID.

We already have this in effect today; there is a numbering plan ID, a 
network ID, and a host ID.  It'd be trivial to assign EUI-64s to users 
instead of to NICs, except that we'd need to make allowances for multiple 
numbers per user.  Of course, since configuration is no longer automatic, 
we'd see billions of cases where users would type in this information 
incorrectly, and we'd need to figure out what to do when multiple users 
share a computer.  And then there's the privacy issues...

> No different from having jefsey.com, jefsey.org, jefsey.net.

My email address ([email-masked]) would work just fine if I were to move 
to France or Korea; in fact I've used it from France myself and one of the 
other users in that domain has lived in Korea and Thailand.  Worked 
perfectly, and there was no need for government-issued IDs or mangling of IP 
addresses.

> etc. We are in regalian (Government role) business.

We already have universal addresses for these functions; SMTP, SIP, etc. all 
have DNS-based addressing schemes that allow users to keep their 
identity(ies) with them when they change network-level providers.

> control. This calls probably for a new economic model.

I'm sure if a national govt came to IANA (or an RIR) and asked for a /32 to 
address everything in their country, and arranged for a national-level 
routing infrastructure to use those addresses exclusively and efficiently, 
it would happen.  They'd then have 96 bits to do whatever they wanted 
locally without interference.

> in the routing tables. But structuring may permit clever thinking.

Enumerating all the humans on the planet only takes 33 bits today, and even 
with 9 bits for a country code and a few bits for multiple devices per user, 
we still have nearly two dozen bits left unused.  Please explain why you 
think /80 or /96 will _ever_ be needed to count people.

> another aspects of the changes we needs.

Why do you think people want numeric names for things?  We already have a 
textual naming system that meets all of your requirements of unlimited 
length, country (and often province) identification, use for multiple 
purposes, etc.  Even you state your theoretical numbering system will be 
conveyed in alphanumeric representation, so why not use the naming system 
_that already does that today_?

We're already seeing a move away from numeric (i.e. address) based phone 
systems towards textual (i.e. name) based communication systems; we're only 
a few years away from users not having phone numbers at all, but rather SIP 
URIs that look the same as email addresses.  Users don't like numbers, and 
they shouldn't be expected much less forced to remember tham, particularly 
long ones.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 20 Nov 2004 14:05:00 +0200

> it will be realistic to consider provisioning first nat/v6 and then nonat/v6

For example ...

# host -a ftp.ipv6.debian.org
Trying "ftp.ipv6.debian.org"
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 50401
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 7, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ftp.ipv6.debian.org.           IN      ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
ftp.ipv6.debian.org.    10800   IN      AAAA    3ffe:1001:210:16::5
ftp.ipv6.debian.org.    10800   IN      AAAA    3ffe:8171:10:16::5
ftp.ipv6.debian.org.    10800   IN      AAAA    2001:708:310:54::99
ftp.ipv6.debian.org.    10800   IN      AAAA    2001:718:1:1:2d0:b7ff:fe46:fbb8
ftp.ipv6.debian.org.    10800   IN      AAAA    2001:760:202:103::4
ftp.ipv6.debian.org.    10800   IN      AAAA    2001:770:18:2::1:1
ftp.ipv6.debian.org.    10800   IN      AAAA    2001:b68:e207::3

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
ipv6.debian.org.        10800   IN      NS      klecker.debian.org.
ipv6.debian.org.        10800   IN      NS      newsamosa.debian.org.
ipv6.debian.org.        10800   IN      NS      saens.debian.org.
ipv6.debian.org.        10800   IN      NS      spohr.debian.org.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
newsamosa.debian.org.   370     IN      A       208.185.25.35

Received 335 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 2162 ms
# host -a www.ipv6.microsoft.com
Trying "www.ipv6.microsoft.com"
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 62026
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 5

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.ipv6.microsoft.com.                IN      ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.ipv6.microsoft.com. 3600    IN      AAAA    2002:836b:9820::836b:9886
www.ipv6.microsoft.com. 3600    IN      A       131.107.152.134

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
microsoft.com.          24633   IN      NS      ns3.msft.net.
microsoft.com.          24633   IN      NS      ns4.msft.net.
microsoft.com.          24633   IN      NS      ns5.msft.net.
microsoft.com.          24633   IN      NS      ns1.msft.net.
microsoft.com.          24633   IN      NS      ns2.msft.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.msft.net.           41483   IN      A       207.46.245.230
ns2.msft.net.           41483   IN      A       64.4.25.30
ns3.msft.net.           41483   IN      A       213.199.144.151
ns4.msft.net.           41483   IN      A       207.46.66.75
ns5.msft.net.           41483   IN      A       207.46.138.20

Received 262 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 101 ms
#

MfG Kai

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:01:34 +0100

Dear Stephen,
there are two things necessary first to accept:

- that what we name "names" and "addresses" are two of the three main ways 
to identify objects. The way linked to the object, the way attached to the 
system, the way related to the users. And because this analysis is not 
worded clearly and there only two accepted levels there is a lot of 
confusion. This confusion is increased by the routing Internet system.

- a identification plan is something far more complex than a protocol which 
is not to be designed a minima, in a few mails but which calls for 
experience, studies, consensus of a lot of authorities, worldwide. For 
example, you cannot say that you treat all the countries in the world with 
"9" bits. There are scores of standards, study, needs,billions of daily 
affected usages, transactions, records, legal consequences, etc. etc ... to 
be taken into account. This is not something where a Government "can apply" 
for a /32 to some RIR. This is something where States sovereignty 
_decide_through a carefully designed treaty. This is why IPv6 does not 
fulfill the need the way it is proposed. Again, the problem is not the 
protocol, the problem is the lack of interest in the way the numbering is 
to be managed. Which makes it useless for most of the uses it could be also 
used for, and the world need to see addressed. Add to the resulting Vint/US 
centrric way it is perceived.

I accept that we did it quickly, and alone, 20 years ago for X.121. But we 
did because we were licensed to do it by the FCC, within an ITU (CCITT) 
consensus aggregating all the telecom monopolies which were our customers 
(delegating us) and partners for that (we were the leading public operator 
and the source/end of their international traffic and the manufacturer of 
their technology). We kept them informed and seek their direction in 
bi-yearly meeting we made _them_ to organize and chair. Also we only 
proposed a framework, we discussed it with every monopolies listening to 
and embodying their remarks, respecting the standard they had voted. We 
also only partly committed 20% of the numbering space (0-- and 9--) and 
make it easily reversible or mendable by them. We listen to the users and 
to their dealy changes and developments, we did not evangelize them with a 
15 years old theoretical gospel. I do not say this to criticize, but taking 
advantage from a positive experience may be useful and helpful when one are 
mudded in a problem. Obviously these are two different situations.

>NIC of a particular computer, not to a publicly known legal identity.

Please do not confuse what is possible and what is mandatory. The rule is 
not what YOU decide, but what EACH USER decides for himself. This is not to 
be an obligation but a service.

>>numbering area. This is what they want to correct with ITU. I submit 
>>there is no conflict. IPv6 has 6 different numbering plans. Let say that 
>>001 is for the US Vint's legacy and 011 for international. That Vint can 
>>manage the 001 area and the ITU the 011 area. This is status quo.
>
>If the IP routing infrastructure were regulated (as the telephone one is) 
>so that all US ISPs had to carry for non-US routes was a single prefix, 
>this would work.  Currently, it doesn't work that way, and many things 
>would need to be changed for that to happen.

This is your point of view as a technologist, who represent may be 
1/million of the people of this planet. What you mean when you say "many 
things would need to be changed" is that many things should be changed in 
your vision, but you may fail to see that for your approach to happen there 
would many things to change in the way the other billions people interact. 
This may be why IPv6, using that plan, does not catch.

>>means that they will allocate national IDs that you will be able to use 
>>as a NetworkID or as a UserID. And you will probably get the UserID for 
>>free at birth or creation, probably additional ones on a small fee and 
>>you will pay for the routing to your NetworkID.
>
>Why the heck should users care what their IP address is in the first 
>place? They are not intended to be seen by users, and there is a 
>user-friendly replacement called DNS that is manageable by end-users for 
>their needs.

I am afraid you confuse what these two systems are doing. See below.

>mechanism will be added, increasing latency and decreasing reliability.

Network identifiers are not absolute coordinates and identifiers. An 
address is an index in a table. What is important is that this index is 
fully controlled. The less transparent added layer is the additional 
'addressing DNS'  some propose (how to do it for mobiles other wise). You 
are right: this would be absurd and this is what a lack of addressing 
organization will necessarily call for, to compensate it. But let 
understand that addressing is not a directory. One want to access an 
address in a table, not to document a whois. A whois is only necessary when 
you sell host addresses to host owners. Please do not think in 1983 
Internet and IPv4 Host centric academic network terms. I know this legacy 
is difficult to overcome. But we are in a real demand world, not in RFC 
legacy.

Just refer to the basic Internet architecture principle of Brian 
Carptenter: there is only one principle that will never change : that 
everything may change. And changes do not occur because IETF technologists 
want them or the way they want, they occur because the users want them. The 
IETF is not to invent the Internet but to help users to make it to work.

>>- a numbering plan header (like 011) + may be one or two additional 
>>digits to qualify plans, documentation, anycast, multicast, and he type 
>>of service/network (like telephone, Internet, TV, Radio, Posts, etc. )
>numbers per user.

You have to make allowance of roughly 1000 numbers by users, multiplied by 
1000 for management (you never know what is going to increase), multiplied 
by 1000 for innovation, multiplied by PI like in any project multiplied by 
an uncertain number which will decide of the duration of the plan. There 
are rules, experience, examples, obligations in that sort of game I never 
even seen discussed in here. To sell IPv6, is for us to make sure people 
concerned are getting involved and convinced that IPv6 can foot the bill.

My worry is that they already did just that in CCITT (ITU-T) in the mid-80 
and they decided that they will not use addresses longer than 32 digits. 
With the experience and development we known in 20 years I feel we should 
base our thinking on an _open_ /256 base. But the we can manage for a while 
with /128 if we provision future /256 expansions in new RFCs.

>   Of course, since configuration is no longer automatic, we'd see 
> billions of cases where users would type in this information incorrectly, 
> and we'd need to figure out what to do when multiple users share a 
> computer.  And then there's the privacy issues...
>
>My email address ([email-masked]) would work just fine if I were to 
>move to France or Korea; in fact I've used it from France myself and one 
>of the other users in that domain has lived in Korea and Thailand.  Worked 
>perfectly, and there was no need for government-issued IDs or mangling of 
>IP addresses.

I am afraid I was confusing. I was just saying that my personal nickname 
"jefsey" worked the same in the DNS under various TLD as my 280810001 
UserID would work the same in the 3110022 NY ISP and in my 280820087 French 
ISP.

If you consider the way famous names are treated in the DNS they do exactly 
that. Whatever the TLD, IBM or MERCEDES are like universal user names. This 
is not an IETF proposition. This is a WIPO decision.

The priority is easiness of  simple, stable, sure, secure fool proof use, 
not to do what is technically possible. For that everyone is ready to waste 
a lot of numbering space not to lose a lot of time and money in bug 
tracking and in calling user support. Even the well documented Jordi's site 
on IPv6 is a total darkness for 999.995 people out of a million in the world.

This has a cost that obviously no government (except may be the US DoD with 
cybersecurity), no organization (except research and some fancy minded 
corporation or academic institutes) or entrepeneurs betting on a 15 years 
old novelty has seemingly found an ROI for.

>>This means that everyone has an address for his web/mail, for 
>>broadcasting TV or cognitive radio, etc. You can discuss international 
>>agreements, establish treaties on content, on address-back (feed back on 
>>an address?) payment authentication, establish usage warranties and 
>>insurances, etc, etc. We are in regalian (Government role) business.
>
>We already have universal addresses for these functions; SMTP, SIP, etc. 
>all have DNS-based addressing schemes that allow users to keep their 

I am afraid you confuse DNS and IP addressing. I am not against the concept 
(less than 50% of the internet exchanges are using the DNS) but this will 
lead to confusion. Actually what you propose is OSI. The international US 
system during a time (mid-80s) supported OSI addresses in using numeric 
names. But our target was to introduce naming back into OSI, though usage 
(like in DNS today), not to replace it. The OSI problem was that confusion.

>I'm sure if a national govt came to IANA (or an RIR) and asked for a /32 
>to address everything in their country, and arranged for a national-level 

I am afraid that no Gov will ever came to IANA and ask... The same as when 
Stuart Lynn asked Gov to advise, or IAB asks Govs to finance, etc. the Govs 
say they are not that business, but in the business of deciding and to 
protect people when they trust their decisions. This is what is named 
"regalian duty" (what goes with regalia).

Govs have understood there is a problem. They started with names. Now they 
start considering numbers. Govs have signed a treaty nearly 140 years ago 
to jointly address their communications issues through a universal agency 
(it was the first one). For years this agency has been told inappropriate 
to manage the Internet - while it supported well the semi-private 
initiative of the first international network and erred in parts in 
specifying a too rigid, too monopoly oriented technology (OSI). They 
observed. Now they are trying to analyze what they should do, to make sure 
their digital infrastructure works properly.

As you may recall the IETF and the IANA owns nothing. People, Govs, 
Corporations owns the equipment. And they increasingly think the solutions 
proposed by IETF do not match the way they want to use them. So, ITU has 
started proposing resuming its role of center of reference. For names 
(ccTLD) and Numbers (DCC). These are not /32 but /16 with accepted rules in 
part of this /16.

>Enumerating all the humans on the planet only takes 33 bits today, and 
>even with 9 bits for a country code and a few bits for multiple devices 
>per user, we still have nearly two dozen bits left unused.  Please explain 
>why you think /80 or /96 will _ever_ be needed to count people.

This means that you can probably name all the people of the planet with 
unambiguous 8 characters names. So why not to change to an DNSv6 8 
characters system and see if it takes off.

The first rule of a numbering scheme (like in database indexing) is to keep 
as much as possible free space. That you ask to me instead of both of us 
referring to an ISO standard shows that out debate is out of scope. I am 
not arguing what should be done. I am telling what will not work.

>>2. there are much more needs to address virtual objects than just 
>>computer ports. So wee need to establish a numeric root of the numbering 
>>schemes accessible through the network, to give them an addressing 
>>capacity (this is what we called the Uninum proposition) of an unlimited 
>>size (their purpose is not necessarily to number network entities, but to 
>>number entities which can be reached through the network). They may 
>>eventually be supported by numeric names. These addresses will become 
>>more and more important as unique lingual and time independent 
>>references. But this is another aspects of the changes we needs.
>

Sorry for the confusion. Please refer to my initial remark. There are three 
levels of identification. Only 2 are documented by IETF but the three are 
used by the users. We name "brainware" the way users collectively uses the 
network and think the network is. The point is not so much what the 
hardware and the software are, but what the people think the network is and 
the way it should react to them.

I used "eventually" with a French flavor. I mean both that this will happen 
(English meaning) and that it can also be used (French flavor). I say that 
necessarily numeric names will be used to support some addressing (because 
today the confusing IETF wording associates names with DNS and numeric with 
IP addresses). Because they already are (cf. use of numeric names by non 
roman character set users).

Please refer to my initial remark. As long as there are no _clear_ words to 
describe all the functions carried in a network system and possibly a clear 
model to describe where they fit, that can of misunderstanding and waste of 
time will happen. Sorry. All the words we use today are inherited from the 
way the function they correspond to was supported in 80s Internet.

Today, interfaces with some functions can only be carried with numeric 
names, how absurd it can be. Example: ENUM (a direct addressing relation 
would be far more efficient with a /xx-Numbering plan addressing.

>systems towards textual (i.e. name) based communication systems; we're 
>only a few years away from users not having phone numbers at all, but 
>rather SIP URIs that look the same as email addresses.  Users don't like 
>numbers, and they shouldn't be expected much less forced to remember tham, 
>particularly long ones.

Sorry, this is not a move away from "numeric". This is a move towards 
simplification in aliasing the information used to called a telephone 
device which is identified by an address in a network. IP addresses are not 
to be good mnemonic, they need to be stable and globally consistent. There 
is much demand the other way around. To send mail to telephone number (if 
there was no spam). There is no mystery every information which is not in 
the address is to be in a table. Look at the difference of finding a place 
in NY, Paris and Tokyo. On the network it is the same. Please let stop 
considering DNS and IP addresses. There are object location and access 
routing information which can be aliased by users for usage simplification, 
increased control or added value reasons.

jfc

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:54:50 +0100

On 2004-11-20, at 05.13, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> This does not mean that you are bound to a single number, the same you 
> are not bound to a single mobile. Let not think "the users should do 
> it the way I think", but "I am to permit the users to do it the way I 
> never thought they would do it", because it is generally the way these 
> people behave ....
>

No, I made a poor attempt at being sarcastic. John seems to have gotten 
my point and explained it well.

> Except that it does not catch. Why ?

I think Brian is right when he says we don't know this yet.

> still relies on ISPs and that if addresses are longer they still are 
> far too short. Because they are managed by RIRs who have no societal 
> and no political power. But mainly because we consider the wrong 
> product: no one is interested in the Version 6 of the IP protocol. 
> There are a lot of people interested in the management and political 
> capacity to manage /128 long addresses.
>
> - these addresses are managed "a la IPv4", as a unique Vint 
> Cerf's/ICANN numbering area. This is what they want to correct with 
> ITU. I submit there is no conflict. IPv6 has 6 different numbering 
> plans. Let say that 001 is for the US Vint's legacy and 011 for 
> international. That Vint can manage the 001 area and the ITU the 011 
> area. This is status quo.

Actually not. Currently there is (at least in perception) a global 
addressing policy. This means that a change in policy that would affect 
the organizations carrying the burden of the changes (providers) is 
transparent to them, and they and anyone else can influence it. In your 
world this does not hold so it's not status quo.

> numbering plan is in using DCC (or the like). (DCC is data country 
> code). The same as there are ccTLDs in naming. So Frank has no problem 
> for his SOPAC islands. They are entitled as many addresses as others. 
> Does that change anything for the RIRs and the routing? No, this is 
> simple address management.

The problem with the SOPAC islands is artificial and AFAIK in the 
process of being solved. The DCC plan is naive at best, and already 
implemented in several countries by he use of NIRs. So if a country 
feels this is a real need, it is already done in the current system.

> - the way the countries will manage their numbering space is up to 
> them. But if I refer to the telephone solutions, my guess is that many 
> will differentiate routing and addressing in a very simple way (and 
> this is certainly what the ART (French FCC) wants to hear about - 
> because this is what users want : IP addresses are to be independent 
> from the ISP). This means that they will allocate national IDs that 
> you will be able to use as a NetworkID or as a UserID.

And multinationals? Routing? This has been discussed at great length 
several times in several forums. What if I as an end-user would get a 
better deal if I locked my self in to a specific provider with their 
addresses? That is my right!

> And you will probably get the UserID for free at birth or creation, 
> probably additional ones on a small fee and you will pay for the 
> routing to your NetworkID.

....and someone hacks that nice system and yoou have rendered all the 
userIDs insecure and not trustworthy.

I still think the ITU proposal is non-workable and is yet a variation 
of (albeit a poor one) geographical addressing.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Nov 2004 20:28:15 +0000

[email-masked] (Kai Henningsen) quotes me as saying:

> > of services that anybody will want to access will be v4+v6 reachable,
> > and it will be realistic to consider provisioning first nat/v6 and then
> > nonat/v6 endhosts.

...and then adds...

> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> ftp.ipv6.debian.org.          AAAA    3ffe:1001:210:16::5
> ftp.ipv6.debian.org.          AAAA    3ffe:8171:10:16::5
> ftp.ipv6.debian.org.          AAAA    2001:708:310:54::99
> ftp.ipv6.debian.org.          AAAA    2001:718:1:1:2d0:b7ff:fe46:fbb8
> ftp.ipv6.debian.org.          AAAA    2001:760:202:103::4
> ftp.ipv6.debian.org.          AAAA    2001:770:18:2::1:1
> ftp.ipv6.debian.org.          AAAA    2001:b68:e207::3

that's nonuseful in two ways.  first, get rid of those "3ffe" things.
second, put these on the main name, don't make people use an alternate
name.  for example:

        ftp.freebsd.org has address 62.243.72.50
        ftp.freebsd.org has address 204.152.184.73
        ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::e
or
        www.isc.org has address 204.152.184.88
        www.isc.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::d
or
        ftp.isc.org has address 204.152.184.110
        ftp.isc.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::18
or
        www.netbsd.org has address 204.152.190.12
        www.netbsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:4:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9a6b

> www.ipv6.microsoft.com. 3600    IN      A       131.107.152.134

lovely addresses.  but they should be attached to www.microsoft.com, not
www.ipv6.microsoft.com.  this works fine and causes no problems for ipv4-only
hosts.  using an alternate name for ipv6 in 2004 or later is chickenhearted.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Jon Allen Boone <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:50:19 -0500

Folks,

   I'd like to publicly apologize to Joe Abley for venting my 
frustration with other people on him.  Bad enough that I did it, but I 
compounded the damage by doing it in a public forum.  It was wrong and 
I am sorry.

--jon

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:46:23 +1200

Joel,

Well, in most Pacific Islands, there is only one operator who is nearly 
fully owned by the government, so the words "sole ISP" and "country" can 
be interchanged. The countries there are islands, physically and virtually.

When we try to apply for address space, we are usually told to apply 
from the upstream ISP, but in this part of the world it is real easy to 
change upstream ISP every year due to satellite link. Therefore to avoid 
to redo the whole network IP every time pricing changes, it is better to 
assign a set to a "country" whose population is around 100,000 people 
more often less than that.

Cheers

Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I am missing one thing.  Why do "countries" need allocations?  
> Operators need address space.  Operators in a country need address 
> space.  But there is no reason that an operator operating in a 
> country, even if operating only in that country, needs address space 
> from an allocation directed to that country.
> From other messages I have seen, you probably are looking to do 
> something quite reasonable, but I can not quite determine what it is.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> At 01:30 PM 11/18/2004, you wrote:
>
>> Paul Vixie wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>than
>>[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> [email-masked]://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

-- 
Franck Martin
ICT Specialist
[email-masked]
SOPAC, Fiji
GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9  D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320
"Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:50:12 +0200 (EET)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Franck Martin wrote:
> When we try to apply for address space, we are usually told to apply from the 
> upstream ISP, but in this part of the world it is real easy to change 
> upstream ISP every year due to satellite link. Therefore to avoid to redo the 
> whole network IP every time pricing changes, it is better to assign a set to 
> a "country" whose population is around 100,000 people more often less than 
> that.

If there are 100,000 people on an island, and the island has one ISP, 
it should not be that difficult to justify the 200 /48's rule.  What 
is the problem here?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:14:59 -0500

> be interchanged. The countries there are islands, physically and virtually.

<troll mode=on>

While waiting in the dentist's office this morning, I was reading the
Sept 2004 issue of National Geographic, which mentioned that the Maldives
are in serious danger from global warming, as there's nothing more than
6 or 8 feet above *current* mean sea level.

Do we reclaim their prefix when it submerges and everybody leaves, or do we
deaggregate and announce sub-prefixes all over the place? ;)

<troll mode=off>