North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6

  • From: Stephen Wilcox
  • Date: Thu Jun 28 13:15:00 2007

Hi John,
 I am not offering an elegant technical solution that would be worthy of an RFC number! :) But I am saying that the Internet of today will evolve organically and that there are a number of ways you can get by with what we have for a long time until things get really ugly.

Justin suggested that ISPs will be hit first because they are the distributors of IPs and when they cant go back for more they will be in trouble. I can turn that around tho, as an ISP if I cant get more IP space but I have customers who NEED public IPs and are willing to pay I will just 'find' some.. if I charge a small nominal monthly fee per IP or start pushing my DSL base onto NAT rather than static or dynamic public IPs I'm sure I can quickly free up a significant portion of IPs that I can capitalise on.


I still dont believe the current Internet is a hierarchy. Theres something like 25000 ASNs out there with maybe 3000 of them interconnecting in a serious way (ie peering). If that were a corporate org chart you'd be describing it as flat not hierarchical!

Steve

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:51:48PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> Steve -
>  
>    If you have a plan for continued operation of the Internet
>    during IPv4 depletion, please write it up as an RFC.  Our
>    present Internet routing scheme is predominantly working
>    based on hierarchical routing but I'm certain there are
>    alternatives.
> 
> /John
> 
> At 5:42 PM +0100 6/28/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >Hi John,
> > I wasnt specifically thinking of reclamation of space, I was noting a couple of things:
> >
> >- that less than 50% of the v4 space is currently routed. scarcity will presumably cause these non-routed blocks to be:
> > :- used and routes
> > :- reclaimed and reassigned
> > :- sold on
> >
> >- that much of the space in use within organisations could be optimised
> > :- mop up unused gaps in subnet
> > :- return IPs to the org's pool by forcing departments onto NATs
> >
> >Pushing to NAT is on the face of it similar to pushing for early adoption of v6 whereby v6-v4 gateways provide a translation. However the technology for NATs is well established, widely deployed, cheap and very understandable to any IT guy.
> >
> >You also refer to routing table size. The current routing table is growing quickly but people have been predicting the tables will outgrow the technology for many years but in each case new hardware gets released and on modern routers we can take significant growth (400%?).
> >
> >I dont believe routing table size comes into play in this, the simple reason is that whatever we say there will always be companies willing to take routes for money and it doesnt matter who or where they are because the rest of the world just has to route it.
> >
> >I dont think that hierarchical routing will ever be a reality in todays diverse internet backbone, to not be a top tier carrier with your own ASN, and a full set of routes means you are closing your doors on selling transit. There are many thousand organisations making money from that, I cant see 99% of them bowing out gracefully to leave a few 'tier1s' behind.. that would be like turning back the clock 15 years.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:16:51PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> >> Steve -
> >> 
> >>     For the first end site that has to connect via IPv6,
> >>     it will be very bad if there is not a base of IPv6
> >>     web/email sites already in place.
> >>
> >>     While there are going to efforts to recover unused
> >>     IPv4 space, we're currently going through 10 to 12
> >>     blocks of /8 size annually, so you may get an
> >>     additional year or two, but it doesn't change the end
> >>     state.
> >>
> >>     There's no reason for end organizations to change
> >>     their existing IPv4 infrastructure, but they do need
> >>     to get their public facing servers reachable via IPv6.
> >>
> >>     Anyone who thinks that the ISP's community can
> >>     continue to grow using smaller and smaller pieces
> >>     of reclaimed IPv4 address space hasn't considered
> >>     the resulting routing table.   We've build an entire
> >>     Internet based on the assumption that most new
> >>     end user sites are getting hierarchical, aggregatable
> >>     PA assignments.   This assumption is soon to fail
> >>     until there's an option for connecting customers
> >>     up via new hierarchical address space.
> >>
> >>     Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
> >>     servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
> >>
> >> /John
> >>
> >> At 4:00 PM +0100 6/28/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >> >Hmm I find this topic quite interesting.
> >> >
> >> >First is the belief that the Internet will suddenly break on the day when the last IP block is allocated by an RIR - the fact that most of the v4 space is currently not being announced may mean we have many years before there are real widespread shortages
> >> >
> >> >Second is the belief that this will prompt a migration to IPv6, as though moving to an entirely different and largely unsupported protocol stack is the logical thing to happen. Surely it is easier and far cheaper by use of existing technology for example for organisations to make efficient use of their public IPs and deploy NATs?
> > > >
> >> >As technology people we are looking at v6 as the clean bright future of IP, but the real world is driven by economics and I dont see v6 as being economically viable in the near future....
> >> >
> >> >I'm also yet to hear a convincing explanation of how v6 and v4 are expected to interoperate in a v4 internet that contains v6 islands...
> >> >
> >> >Steve
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:33:25AM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm working on it ... But I think it will be really difficult to capture in
> >> >> a couple of pages what the document try to explain !
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Jordi
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > De: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> > Responder a: <owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> > Fecha: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:25:22 +0200
> >> >> > Para: <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> > CC: <nanog@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> > Asunto: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 27-jun-2007, at 21:08, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I've published a document trying to analyze the IPv4 exhaustion
> >> >> >> problem and
> >> >> >> what is ahead of us, considering among others, changes in policies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3004
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ugh, a link to a page with a link...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you have an executive summary for us?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> **********************************************
> >> >> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> >> >>
> >> >> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> >> >> http://www.ipv6day.org
> >> >>
> >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>