[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

[Davis, Terry L]

Tony/Lee

Thanks for the input.  I'll try to catch up then I have get off for the
weekend (otherwise I'll have more problems to deal with as we are
re-modeling and my half thinks I have priorities misplaced!).

- We still need to figure out a working routing protocol that will
scale.  I agree with Randy here but I think we will have to be "forced"
to fix it just like with v4.

- In thinking about the homeowner, I consider my relatives.  Basically
outside of myself and one other member, those older than 40 have a real
problem understanding all these issues.  The solution has to be simple
like the current phone system; in my opinion we are not even close to
having something the average homeowner can use really well.

- Yes there are lots of ways to skin the "logical stability" issue.  It
is up to US (the technical community) to figure this out and not to try
pass off the problem.  If we don't , either the USPS or the UN will win
the debate, I'm not sure I like either of those options.

- In reality, there is NO need for the individual networks a user
(individual or business) has on their facility/property to route between
each other.  Keep in mind that with IP-v6, any system I have can be on
multiple networks with one adapter.  And they do NOT have to route
between each other; mostly they probably should not. (Microsoft has
allowed this for years on IP-v4)

- For IP-v6 inbound calls to an aircraft, nope you do NOT get to make
them until the "aircraft" initiates a secure tunneled link to the
ground.  And then if you are in right place and PERMITTED (i.e. a voice
provider) then phones registered on that aircraft could receive incoming
calls.  In general, do not expect to get direct access from the Internet
to an aircraft in any case; the developing standards will prohibit that.
The aircraft will open to a gateway with limited access.

Hope this helps.

Take care
Terry

PS: Howard if you are going to be in Dallas for the IETF, please email
me.



-----Original Message-----
From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:35 PM
To: Tony Hain; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

> Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> 
> > Just because one changes does not mean the others need to change.
> > That's why we have DNS and logical pointers.  The stack isn't
> > monolithic.  There are several network protocols that can
> > accomodate this requirement, but TCP/IP isn't designed that way.
> 
> It isn't -operated- that way. The only requirement for IP addresses to
> change comes from the desire to minimize cost in the routers. 

That's a couple of logical steps from my statement, but I see how you 
get there.  I would still say that layer 3 changes don't necessarily
require layer 7 changes, which is why we have a layered model.

> If you appear to be working toward a middle ground that 
> provides a level of
> stability to the home user without the scaling problems inherent in a
> database model, then the politicians will likely back off and 
> give you a chance.

I've heard two home users say they don't like having to change IP 
addresses when they change ISPs.  One of them said they didn't like
it because they had to change email addresses and web addresses, and
I'm not convinced those are all related.  Should ARIN conduct a poll
of random homeowners to see if IP address portability is a common 
concern?
 
 
> > I've changed providers at home four times in the last two years.
> > My personal web site and my personal email address have been
> > unaffected.  I reduced my DNS TTLs, made the DNS change, and cranked
> > the TTLs back up.  I run my own server, but it would have been as
> > easy if I'd been hosted.
> 
> Obviously you run with static addresses. While there are ddns 
> services out
> there, it is still not trivial for the average consumer to 
> make this work.
> As long as DNS as a system is built and operated in 'guru's 
> only' mode,
> there is no hope that it can be used to mask over the 
> mandatory change you advocate by PA-only. 

I think you passed my point.  Yes, this works with static addresses.
If you have dynamic addresses, you can either do dDNS magic, or
have your services hosted by someone other than your access provider.
There are multiple ways to skin this cat, and permanent assignment
of provider-independent is one.  Is it the best one?  To evaluate
"best," it's important to understand the implications.

I've backed off my PA-only stance.  As a board member, I try not to
advocate for or against policy, but I do try to make sure I 
understand what other people are advocating for or against.


> > We're still talking about residences, right?
> ...
> > Do these three networks need one /64, three /64s, or one /62?
> 
> I know the context changed in the original note, but it 
> applies to both the
> home and plane cases. The answer is that it depends on the 
> goals of the end
> network operator, and the mix of technologies in use. 
> Multi-media bridging
> is just a broken concept and history is full of failed 
> attempts. 

I don't know what that means.  Is that bridging as I understand
it in the Ethernet world, applied to multiple layer 2 protocols?

You offer three sets of policy spaces:
1.
> Unless you restrict all future networks to use today's link-layer 
> 'ethernet' technology
> then the answer has to be they always need more than a single 
> /64. 

2.
> If you
> want to do 'simple' reverse dns delegation and management then nibble
> boundaries are called for. 

3. 
> Finally if the operator of the network wants
> isolation then more subnets are required. 

With #1 and #2, should the home be assigned a /62?  /48?
Then each network gets a separate /64 slice?  I'm having trouble 
understanding the routing, unless it's a separate route entry for every
house /64.  Or /48.
Or does each network assign its own /64?  This is the current policy.

> Why should ARIN or a service
> provider get to decide if their 'want' justifies more than a 
> single /64, or /60? The IPv4 space was limited and needed oversight.
In IPv6 
> a degree of
> oversight is appropriate, but there are diminishing returns 
> to consider. 

What level of oversight do you suggest?
On what grounds would it be appropriate to deny a request for additional

IPv6 address space?  

> It
> would be very easy to waste the majority of the IPv6 space by 
> refusing to
> let people have as much as they would use thereby driving 
> them to find a
> replacement sooner than they will otherwise. When it never 
> gets used due to
> replacement it is just as wasted as if it gets handed out in 
> too large a block and remains idle. 

Well said.


> > ...
> > Is the passenger laptop on board supposed to use an aircraft IP
> > address, or its home address?
> 
> The answer is yes, depending on the specific application. If 
> the app is
> onboard entertainment it should use an address from the 
> aircraft. If the
> application is VoIP then it should use its home address so 
> inbound calls can
> find it. Fortunately IPv6 allows for both to exist at once. 
> The alternative
> would be a single address & ddns system that was globally 
> responsive enough
> to deal with the update rate, not to mention one that 
> actually trusted the
> endpoint to make changes as it moved around. 

How does that phone call find you, if you're still using your home
prefix?  We're still in that endpoint-network identifier spin.  I
don't say it can't, I'm asking for education.

> > Remote participation is also an option.
> 
> Doesn't always work well. 

I agree it's not as good as being there, but it's participation,
and it's an option.

> The open question is how one defines waste?

Goals:
IPv6 for a hundred years or so.
Do not outpace routing.

Lee

> Tony
_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml