Subject: Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:38:37 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting a new 
   chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP?

=> the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are
so heavy than nobody wants to follow them to get some address space...
Obviously the purpose is to discourage us to ask for chunk of IPv4
addresses. For IPv6 the procedure is painful but usable.

   What is the average delay you experiment?
   
=> infinite for IPv4, two months for IPv6.

Regards

[email-masked]

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:33:50 +0100

>=> infinite for IPv4, two months for IPv6.

Thank you for this very valuable/key piece of information. Have you an 
indication about the costs involved?
Are there other similar experiences around the world?
jfc

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:29:22 -0500

On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> Thank you for this very valuable/key piece of information.

What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some 
LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?

---

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

At 17:29 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
>What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs 
>are not as easy to deal with as others?

That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, 
and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected.

You see, a user only cares about what he realy gets. A partner of mine was 
unable to get an IPv4 address in 2 years. Same for chunks. I do not think 
there is any other need to document why there are NATs and no IPv6. NAT is 
seen as an alternative to IPv6. While IPv6 should be an alternative to 
IPv4. In blocking IPv4 XIRs block IPv6. Basic marketing.

I only helped a few more responses like Francis' one would help to 
understand there is a problem now, not in a few years.
jfc

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:27:54 -0500

On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is 
> wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no one 
> objected.

RENATER is not an RIR.

Joe

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:07:17 -0600

Thus spake "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> IPv4. In blocking IPv4 XIRs block IPv6. Basic marketing.

We do not know why M. Dupont's request was denied by RENATER, nor is the 
latter an RIR.  LIRs may have their own policies which do not match those of 
their corresponding RIR, and applicants are free to pick another LIR (or 
become their own) if necessary.

There have been no clearly documented cases, AFAIK, where an RIR has denied 
a request that met with their policy requirements.  One may argue that the 
policies have unreasonable requirements, but those policies were approved by 
open process involving the community they serve and (for IPv4) based on the 
global consensus supporting RFC 2050.

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: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:46:18 +0100

>>and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected.

Please let us not try to make a point: we want to _understand_ why NATs 
develop more than IPv6. RENATER is an acknowledged leader in promoting 
IPv6: they are certainly not concerned. What is interesting is the way 
users may perceive the culture deduced from the RIR policy or strategy 
(which may very well work for others). The interest is not to know who is 
"right" (no one is right or wrong) but why there are more NATs than IPv6 
and to be able to change that. What works in some/most today cases may not 
work in every case. I feel, and I try to document, it may be because we 
want to discuss about a single kind of users (ourselves and operators), 
rather than to listen to them all (the small networks, home networks). The 
customer is always right ... all the customers if we want them all.

What counts is not the way the network is built, but the way the users 
understand it.
jfc

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:16:30 -0500

On 7 Dec 2004, at 15:46, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

>>>> What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That 
>>>> some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
>>>
> Please let us not try to make a point

There seems to be no danger of that.

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:46:34 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> develop more than IPv6.

because NAT's have been around in the public eye for a while, are
generally understood or at least accepted by the consumer public, and you
can go buy one off the shelf.  ipv6, on the
other hand, outside of the ietf community is an unknown.  my best
recommendation would be some manner of public awareness propaganda stint
promoting v6, combined with rollout at the backbones, followed closely by
rollout at the ISP's fed by the backbone to the end users.

this does not mean that NAT and ipv6 are mutually exclusive.  far from it.
from my research, which i have shared with you previously, an already
constructed NAT needs only v6 capablility added to the NAT'ed hosts and a
v6 native or tunnel support and v6 routing added to it, such that the v6
internet overlays the existing internat.

> RENATER is an acknowledged leader in promoting
> IPv6:
> they are certainly not concerned. What is interesting is the way

both count.  if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at
least, then how its built does not matter.  if its not built correctly,
large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT
again.

scott

> jfc

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:25:57 +0100

>large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT

True. Obviously the techology is of the essence. What I mean is that IPv6 
will only take off the day the reason why IPv6 was designed is permitted to 
be used (to be an IPv4 with larger addresses). This means that users will 
be permitted to freely innovate in the way they use the Internet in _not_ 
carring about the type of address they use. And that we do not block this 
innovative usage in not permitting what this innovation may need, and in 
not stabilizing the standards. Today I think these needs include legal 
protection, regalian services, permanent addressing, independence from ISP, 
plug-and-play, ...

Obviously as you say. The "internat is the future", with NATs adding 
functions over functions. But we will then talk more of "corebox" than 
NATs. They started as NATs, but once they are under IPv6 - and not a NAT 
anymore - they will continue to be here, and to provide an increasing pile 
of services (starting with OPES, and their network overlay and all the 
possible new architectural non-end-to-end systems .. and all the debates 
this will rise). So, let talk of "interbox".

Exciting future.
jfc

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:48:42 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> be used (to be an IPv4 with larger addresses).

what is standing in the way at the isp level are the following:

a) support applications.  we all know good network operators are usually
anal about security.  anyone have a packet sniffer for v6?
b) revenue streams for isp's.  currently, v4 addresses are a commodity
item.  they cost the end users, no matter who you go to.  are the isp's
willing to give up these revenue streams for better technology?  perhaps
the independents, but asking a telco to give up a way to make money once
they have already found out how to extract it from the public is like
trying to get a sperm sample from your grandmother.  good luck.

> This means that users will
> protection,

why and from whom?

> regalian services,

please define?

> permanent addressing,

solved.  my tunnels provide with them my allocations, for all practical
purposes.  i have had the same v6 addresses on my hosts since i
implemented v6 quite some time ago, with AAAA's pointing to the hosts i
wished to make public.  of course, i have added many more hosts since i
implemented v6.  people in the know are asking to colo in my home office
simply because i have v6.

independence from ISP,

solved.  a tunnel is portable.

> plug-and-play, ...

if you mean stateless autoconfig, then that is solved too.  if it is not
wit you, then i suggest that you contact your OS vendor, or better yet,
move to a better OS;)

> functions over functions.

i'm just saying that since we have NATs, we already have layer 1 of the v6
network in place at the end user premises.

> But we will then talk more of "corebox" than
> NATs.

having built one of those and implemented it on the atlanta backbone some
months ago (remotely no less) there is a need for real large scale routing
hardware to handle v6 expansion at the backbone and isp level.

>  They started as NATs, but once they are under IPv6 - and not a NAT
> possible new architectural non-end-to-end systems

IMHO it is the end to end possibilities that are the most exciting.

> .. and all the debates

Indeed.

scott