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

Marshall Eubanks tme at multicasttech.com
Fri Mar 17 11:45:47 EST 2006

To extend your example at little, would you envision each Aircraft as  
being its
own Autonomous System ? And, if not, why not ?


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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list