[ppml] IP-v6 Needs (RE: a modified proposal 2005-8)

[Marshall Eubanks]

I will probably become unpopular for saying this, but
I actually think that a $ 100 million dollar aircraft with hundreds  
of people and networked
devices on board _should_ be an Autonomous system, with its own PI  
address space to boot.

Regards
Marshall

On Mar 17, 2006, at 11:57 AM, Davis, Terry L wrote:

> Marshall
>
> Possibly but the current mobility schemes don't require that.
>
> Being their own Autonomous System would probably help with service
> provider handoffs; one of our challenges right now is that no one  
> is yet
> working on how the concepts of "Internet docking" really works for  
> large
> mobile platforms with one or more complete onboard networks.
>
> Take care
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme at multicasttech.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:46 AM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IP-v6 Needs (RE: a modified proposal 2005-8)
>
> To extend your example at little, would you envision each Aircraft as
> being its
> own Autonomous System ? And, if not, why not ?
>
> Regards
> Marshall
>
> On Mar 17, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Davis, Terry L wrote:
>
>> Lee
>>
>> My main point is that we cannot plan for an IP-v6 world using IP-v4
>> templates.  The key messages:
>>
>> 1) We MUST provider users (individuals/government/business) with
>> logical
>> stability.  Getting new IP addresses, DNS names, and email addresses
>> every time we either change providers or move will simply be
>> unacceptable.  Without this logical stability, every communication
>> service (voice/email/etc) is unstable, industry-wide initiatives  
>> (i.e.
>> like power control) are not possible, and even gains the financial
>> institutions hope to make with EFT systems become limited (i.e.
>> remember
>> the fun of resetting all your automatic billings/payments email
>> addresses last time you changed service providers?).  I know this
>> may be
>> more an IETF issue but I'm there next week.
>>
>> 2) Assuming that any users (individuals/government/business) will
>> have a
>> single service provider is completely unrealistic.  (Much of point in
>> the chain below) We need to understand impacts of this to IP-v6
>> network
>> architectures and routing.
>>
>> (I'm already dealing with this reality in the aviation industry as we
>> plan for IP-v6.  The aircraft MUST be able to join to many different
>> service provider networks as it moves around the world; we have
>> carriers
>> that fly there aircraft literally around the world in a bit over a
>> day.
>> The aircraft WILL most of the time have simultaneous links to  
>> multiple
>> service providers.  An aircraft will probably have at least three
>> separate networks onboard: air traffic control, airline or
>> operator, and
>> in-flight passenger services/entertainment.)
>>
>> 3) Besides government, whole industries will want address blocks that
>> they manage as closed network; these may be at the regional,  
>> national,
>> or global level.  Power, shipping, and aviation are some that will
>> almost certainly require this.
>>
>> 4) We might as well come to terms with the idea that some of these
>> must
>> be essentially irrevocable.  Can anyone envision revoking the IP
>> address
>> of an aircraft that is set up in air traffic control systems around
>> the
>> world?
>>
>> I doubt that I can make the ARIN meeting in Montreal but I will try.
>>
>> Take care
>> Terry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:44 AM
>> To: Davis, Terry L
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Davis, Terry L [mailto:terry.l.davis at boeing.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:56 PM
>>> To: Howard, W. Lee
>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
>>> Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>> Responses below.
>>>
>>> (All, apologies for the formatting.  My responses are between the +
>>> +++
>>> lines.)
>>
>> That does make it challenging to respond.  In my responses below,
>> I'm trying to point out that this is where we set IP address
>> allocation policies, and in order for your participation to be
>> effective, you need to describe what policy you would like to see.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Take care
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:45 PM
>>> To: Davis, Terry L
>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
>>> Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>>> Behalf Of Davis, Terry L
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:29 PM
>>>> To: Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO
>>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you read it correctly!
>>>>
>>>> The power company will require your electrical systems to
>>> be on their
>>>> PLC networks in order to control your electrical systems; it
>>>> would make
>>>> a completely unworkable control and routing system for the electric
>>>> company to try to map the homeowners ISP assigned networks to
>>>> your home load controller.
>>>
>>> Why?  They have to have a table mapping (IP) address to
>>> (home) address,
>>> so why does it matter if the IP address is theirs?
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> If they don't go directly to the home, they will constantly be:
>>> - Unable to connect due home firewall/network changes
>>> - Have to deal with an IP churn rate per home that will force  
>>> them to
>>> change approaching 20% of their entries annually because
>>> someone either
>>> moves or change service providers.
>>> - Will have to require their customers ALSO get an ISP to get load
>>> control service.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> I understand 1 and 3, but I don't follow your middle point.  You
>> suggested government assignment, either to a physical address, in
>> which case there's no churn, or to an owner, in which case the
>> churn would happen anyway due to moves, regardless of whether the
>> address was assigned by utility or government.
>>
>>
>>>> You will need to interface to their control center somehow
>>> to set your
>>>> home systems/load controllers and that could be via any available
>>>> networks but the actual controls will need to come in over their
>>>> networks.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to understand your position:  The power company needs to
>>> build its own IP network in order to manage power systems at each
>>> home; their IP address assignments will be from their aggregatable
>>> block.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Correct.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>> Likewise government would like to give each home a permanent
>>>> subnet from
>>>> "its addresses" for their use especially including advanced
>>>> EMS services
>>>> such that they can handle both 911 and direct fire alarms.
>>> I wouldn't
>>>> be surprised if in a couple decades, your home City/County has your
>>>> properties IP address on your deed.
>>>
>>> I would be surprised.  IP addresses are not property, and are not
>>> transferable in that sense.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> We will see how it develops.  My guess is that EMS will win although
>>> with IP-v6 they could certainly allocate the address portion of the
>>> space themselves to the property permanently and allow the network
>>> portion to change.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> EMS will win what?  I didn't know there was a contest.
>>
>> IP addresses are not property.  They are identifying numbers, which
>> are allocated or assigned based on policies created by the public
>> and administered by the Regional Internet Registries, such as ARIN.
>> They are fungible, and cannot be owned, bought or sold.
>>
>>
>>>> I already have two ISP's serving my home; cable and DSL
>>> both and will
>>>> probably add an EVDO link with a third.  In my case, because of the
>>>> incredibly poor physical plant in my area, neither are very
>>> reliable.
>>>>
>>>> Try this list, you can validate it with some of the folks working
>>>> community networking:
>>>> - Internet Service Provider
>>>> - Entertainment Service Provider
>>>> - Home Application Service Provider
>>>> - Government Services
>>>> - Communication Service Provider
>>>> - Power Provider
>>>> - Metering Provider
>>>> - EMS (911 and fire alarm)
>>>> - Security Service Provider
>>>>
>>>> None of these will be a simple single IP address either as most  
>>>> will
>>>> have multiple controls or sensors serving your home.
>>>
>>> Would a /64 be sufficient for each, do you think?  Especially if
>>> they're not from a single aggregate block, this would be important
>>> to understand.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> I would certainly think so.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And no your ISP will NOT work as the sole provider of my home IP's!
>>>> I'll personally fight that on capital hill!
>>>
>>> This is the place to fight for that, not Capitol Hill.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> I'd like to think so but history seems to say otherwise.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Please explain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> We fought for the right not
>>>> to be forced to switch phone numbers when we move and I'm on
>>>> my 4th (or
>>>> 5th) ISP serving my home in the last ten years.  (AT&T, Earthlink,
>>>> Qwest, MSN, Speakeasy, and Comcast, ok 6th)  All of which
>>> provided me
>>>> with new IP's and email addresses which had no relation to any my
>>>> previous ones so I had to contact everyone I emailed with and
>>>> have them
>>>> update my email address.  Bill paying services make this even
>>>> worse!  It
>>>> takes months to get them all updated; one-at-a-time.
>>>
>>> Just to make sure I understand your position:
>>> You'd rather have nine provider aggregated addresses
>>> (counting networks
>>> above) than one (PI or PA) address?
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> I think that is what will happen.  Whether I care or not
>>> depends on how
>>> well they can hide the details.  Regardless which option
>>> wins, we cannot
>>> expect the average homeowner to be able to deal IP networking
>>> detail at this level.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> What do you want to have happen?
>> Can you explain how one plan or another affects homeowners?
>>
>>
>>> There are some differences here.  Your choice of local phone  
>>> carriers
>>> has been extremely limited.  The local carrier has physical
>>> facilities
>>> to your house; now the cable company and power company also have
>>> facilities.  An ISP provides a service using those facilities.  They
>>> may provide multiple services, including routing (pretty
>>> essential, and
>>> requiring aggregatable addressing) and maybe also email, but
>>> these are
>>> disjoint: there's no reason your Internet access provider has
>>> to be your
>>> email provider.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Agreed but what we have to do is figure out how to provide
>>> the homeowner
>>> at stable set of logical addresses (email/web/voice/etc) that
>>> map their
>>> physical ones.  Otherwise I am certain that local government will  
>>> win
>>> here.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Again, win what?
>> Since ARIN only administers IP addresses, can we discuss those
>> separately?
>>
>> Is it necessary for email address, web site, and phone number
>> to be permanently mapped to an IP address?  Are no dynamic
>> mappings possible which might make the IP address transparent
>> to the homeowner?
>>
>>
>>>> This is exactly why I would prefer a local government
>>> provided IP that
>>>> was associated with my home address that didn't change
>>> until I moved!
>>>
>>> I must have misunderstood your previous points then.  There are a  
>>> lot
>>> of points to take away from this sentence:
>>> 1.  "Local" government meaning city, county, state, federal, or some
>>> kind of regional Internet registry?
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> The first four although the fifth could work.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>> In order to derive a policy, we need more detail.  What do you
>> advocate?
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2.  You want a government authority to replace the current
>>> system of IP
>>> address allocation?  Can you outline the ways in which this
>>> is superior
>>> to the current system?
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> NO, but that is what I will probably get.  The reason is simple;  
>>> they
>>> can provide me with a stable set of logical relationships
>>> that map to my
>>> physical home.  A present this is simply not possible for a service
>>> provider to do.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>> Then what do you want?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 3.  How would IP addresses be "associated with my home address"?
>>> Do you envision embedding physical address information in the IP
>>> address, like GPS coordinates, or a database owned and operated by
>>> the
>>> government?
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> I think that either GPS or a government DB is most likely.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Is that what you want?
>> Can you provide a way of embedding GPS coordinates into IPv6
>> addresses?
>> Does it scale?
>>
>> Can you describe such a government database?  Maintainer, schema,
>> etc.
>>
>> How would either of these be routed?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 4.  How would routing work?  Would every network have to carry a
>>> Separate route for every home?   Or do you mean that local
>>> governments
>>> should take over all Internet access?
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> In the scenario I envision occurring, local government just becomes
>>> another "service provider" and each of the home service providers
>>> does
>>> their own routing.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>> I'm not quite sure I followed that.  The local government becomes the
>> Internet access provider?  Or do they provide some other service?
>>
>> If the government assigns an address to be used by all of the other
>> providers, there are significant routing implications.  If there's
>> any competition, then addresses cannot be aggregated, and a separate
>> routing entry will have to be maintained for each address.  Can you
>> describe how that would scale, given even optimistic technology
>> projections?  If there's no competition, then we have nine completely
>> separate networks, which do not overlap anywhere and cannot inter-
>> connect.  Also, a different form of government and economy.
>>
>>
>>>> And I certainly don't want to worry that if I change ISP,
>>> 911 or fire
>>>> won't be able to find me.  Likewise I want to keep my phone
>>>> number when
>>>> I move and my email even if I have to change service providers.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but my view of the future world has little to do with  
>>>> today's!
>>>
>>> That's fair to say.  I don't quite understand whether you favor
>>> competition, monopolization, or nationalization.  I'm hoping you can
>>> clarify how routing might work in your vision.  I definitely advise
>>> you to take advantage of one of the many companies providing free
>>> email, so that you don't have to go through the pain of updating  
>>> your
>>> contacts next time you switch ISPs.  Or you can set up your own mail
>>> server, of course.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> I'm in favor of a solution that provides the home owner or  
>>> individual
>>> with a set of "stable" logical relationships.  I certainly won't go
>>> through a "free email provider" as I need them to both be
>>> around for the
>>> long term and to be responsible.  As an example, I keep paying MSN
>>> monthly even though I have no used them as an ISP for over five
>>> years;
>>> this is simply to provide my wife a stable email for a large
>>> non-profit
>>> group she works with.  It is that important!
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> If I have correctly interpreted your arguments, you advocate
>> government control of networks and centralized, rigidly hierarchical
>> networks which map exactly to geography.  You also want those  
>> networks
>> to map exactly to individuals, which seems to be a conflict.
>> Perhaps smooth dynamic mappings between identifiers would require
>> fewer fundamental changes to TCP/IP.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>