[ppml] [narten at us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

[Christopher Morrow]

(snip, snip,snip the cross-posting. and gmail did some crazy quoting :( )

On 4/16/06, Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:
> [very nice cross posting going on here ;) ]
>
> On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 12:10 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> In other words: "You are right with your arguments, but I just threw
> your args away as they are futile based on the comparison of money
> earned this way or the other."...
>
> > People (like me) have explained that the Internet is a business, and
> > in addition to being .. technically unsavory to many people, shim6 is
> > simply not viable in a business setting.
>
> And as you will only care for your business for the coming 10 or maybe
> 20 years you really can't care what happens to the internet afterward.
>

I think patrick, while working for an evil capitalist company true,
still does care what happens to the routing table after he stops
caring about money... He's been around for quite some time and is a
smart fellow. Things like shim6 and PI in v6 are very hard sells to
operators of the networks that make up the Internet today. There is a
reason for this, which Patrick outlined... ignoring that seems silly.

> The idea of IPv6 is (still not was) to have it around for quite some
> time longer than the lifespan of IPv4. Fortunately, the PI thing is far
> from the end of the world and will only help catch on, see below

stopping the PI train is hardly a simple matter. I agree that failing
some reasonable 'multihoming' solution in v6, v6 is dead on arrival. I
don't see that PI space is a smart move for the long term though :( If
PI space gets final approval it will mean that all of the DFZ
providers will have to carry all (or nearly all) /48 routes for
eternity... There is no way to get back the /48's assigned under PI
space after a multihoming solution that makes sense arrives, and there
is, honestly, no driver to continue working on a multihoming solution
now that there is PI space.

Perhaps the original architects of v6 thought that by not proposing a
multihoming solution, multihoming wouldn't happen? or that someone
would arrive at a better solution than smaller deaggregates? Who
knows...

>
> Of course any vendor will love the idea of having to do another IP
> version of course, bring in the cash ;)

because ipv6 was so profitable for them so far? most don't even do v6
correctly today, after 10 years of development! We are in a very bad
position on all fronts here, shim6 isn't making it better, PI v6 isn't
making it better and vendor's doing half-baked product deployments
aren't either.

it seems that backing up, restarting the 'new protocol' process is
likely to end up with another 10 years wasted, so it's very hard to
see a reasonable path forward at this time.

>
> > Neither backbone operators
> > (vendors) nor end users (customers) are warming to the idea.  Just
> > the opposite.  (At least in general, the one-in-a-million end user
> > with DSL and cable who likes the idea 'cause he can't figure out how
> > to spell "B-G-P" or doesn't want to pay for it is irrelevant.)
>
> Irrelevant for you as they don't give you money. Indeed, you only look

I doubt patrick cares so much about whom they give money to... I think
the real issues is if the network will survive in it's current state
with more routes added to it?

> > So how do you get a technology widely accepted when the majority of
> > people involved do not think it is the best technical solution?  When
> > the majority of vendors supposed to implement it will not do so for
> > technical -and- business reasons.
>
> There is for you indeed a business reason to not like it: the end-site
> won't have any reason to stick to the upstream. Which is indeed a bad
> business for many of the 'vendors' you mean.

actually, take this up with the original designers/architects of v6...
the decisions made then are why we are here today. :( vendors are
evil, mostly, but they aren't fully to blame for this plight.

> That is in the long run, most likely in the coming 10-20 years the IPv6
> routing tables will not have 'exploded' yet, but the folks selling

you have some basis for this? I don't have that same faith... I think
that quite quickly every entity that has ipv4 space will have ipv6
space in some PI fashion (if they have ipv4 PI space) and we'll all be
stuck routing that and more from now until eternity. That will
effectively double the current route table, which on much of the
deployed networks isn't such a good plan.