[ppml] Re: [address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation over? (fwd)

[Owen DeLong]

OOPS... Meant to send to list.
(Thanks, Michael)

Owen


------------ Forwarded Message ------------
Date: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:18 -0800
From: Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: [address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation 
over?

Owen,

Did you intend to send this privately? Should go to the ML IMHO.

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:09 PM
To: Michel Py
Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: [address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation
over?

> This topic has been extensively discussed on ipv6mh in the past, and
> it's half-true and half-false. The issue is that "If every ASN had a
> single IPv6 /32" does not register. Large multihomers need either
> multiple /32s or to announce subsets (such as /36) of their own /32,
> which for all practical purposes does not change much in terms of
number
> of entries. There is potential for much more than 12%.
>
This simply does not make sense.  Bear with me:

	If you have a /32, you have more addresses available within
	your autonomous system than ALL of the current IPv4 space
	combined.  Ergo, I propose that there is currently no single
	autonomous system that could in any way justify more than a
	/32 of space.  Heck, a /32 contains as many /64s as the entire
	IPv4 space contains hosts.  There's just no legitimate reason
	to issue any autonomous system (at least any in existence today)
	more than a /32.

	If you are a single autonomous system, then, you have one
routing
	policy.  If you have one routing policy, then, your routes can
	be aggregated as long as they are contiguous and bit-aligned.
	If you are given a contiguous bit-aligned /32, there is no
reason
	any "large multihomer" in existence today needs more than this
	to replace their current IPv4 space.

Perhaps I'm missing something in the (unnecessary) complexity of V6
addressing.  I'll admit my head is somewhat in the sand when it comes
to V6 because I just don't see it being relevant to me yet.  I suspect
it will eventually become relevant, but, date-creep seems to be a major
factor in when that will be.  As such, I suspect I have about the same
level of V6 understanding as the vast majority of the operational
community which is to say:

	We know it exists.

	We know it uses 128 bit addresses somehow.

	We know that the last 48 bits of the address is usually just
	the MAC address of the host and that some dynamic address
	assignment process is required (ala DHCP but more complicated).

	Some of us know that it's not TUBA.

That's about all we know.

>> I am going to strongly disagree on this point at this time. We
>> don't know that there will /ever/ be a strong migration of users
>> to IPv6. IPv6 may yet flop completely, be replaced by IPv8
>
> I'm sure Jim Fleming will be pleased :-D
>
I have confirmed with Leo that he picked 8 out of thin air and was
unaware of the Flemming history.  Think of it as IPvMumble rather
than as Flemming's V8.
> The cost of enabling IPv6 in a Californian enterprise today is US$600
> one-time and $100/yr recurring support cost until IPv4 is removed.
This
> is an un-scientific median cost from a small set of my own diverse
> customers, but can't be _that_ much of course. Where's my ROI?
>
That's only the cost of obtaining the addresses and keeping them.  The
cost of deployment is MUCH more significant in terms of man-hours
and equipment costs.

> As far as end-customer demand, save for a massive "Intel Inside" like
TV
> campaign, I don't see how it could happen either. I will develop this
> later as well, but IPv6 situation in terms of marketing is somehow
> similar to microprocessor vendors: almost nobody buys a CPU alone
these
> days, and almost nobody will buy IPv6 as a standalone product either.
> For the general public, "IPv6 inside" is the way to market. Catch: it
> ain't no cheap.
>
The only entities I've seen with a compelling desire to push IPv6 are
cellular phone companies (it's hard to address all cellphones in IPv4
space) and Micr0$0ft with their desire to provide an IPv6 only Teenager
platform.

Owen



---------- End Forwarded Message ----------