[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

Davis, Terry L terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Thu Jul 12 17:11:35 EDT 2007


John Paul

 

Probably yes and no as to the connectivity to the global Internet; the requirement for security and the need to do business often clash harshly  I just don't see any ISP telling their local power company or hospital that they will no longer carry their IPv4 traffic.  And don't forget that government (rightly or wrongly) will get involved in that type of issue; my experience is that "politics and technology make poor bedfellows" as the outcome is not usually what either wants.  From ages ago, in the very early phases of my career, I still know where there is a major US highway in the southern US that has a very large "dog leg" in it to preserve "Granma's walnut tree".  (And yea, 35 years ago I was civil engineering student designing highways not networks; I'm still registered as a PE in three states and can still approve civil designs in them.)

 

It may be true about the difference in "end of life" and conceivably the legacy v4 could be tunneled across a v6 Internet, but only time will tell how it evolves.

 

We just have no way to rip IPv4 out of everyplace we have put it; embedded control systems are really not "upgradeable"!

Take care 
Terry 

________________________________

From: John Paul Morrison [mailto:jmorrison at bogomips.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:57 AM
To: Davis, Terry L
Cc: jordi.palet at consulintel.es; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

 

I really, *really* hope these systems are not connected to the global Internet! :-)

I think there's likely a big difference between IPv4 end of life on the Public Internet, and IPv4 end of life on private networks, control systems etc.

Right now the Internet is a bunch of private networks running IPv4 and internetworking with IPv4. For the Internet to evolve it will need to be a bunch of private networks running either IPv4 and/or v6, and internetworking with IPv6. (If you can interconnect with v6, v4 becomes redundant and will likely be thought of as a security hole).

I don't see how two protocols, side by side on the same device are scalable on the Public Internet for very long. We could see:

1. Stick with IPv4, forget IPv6. (Ab)use NAT, trade valuable IPv4 addresses on the black market, the whole thing could keep going indefinitely but it would get more and more in the way of commerce as IPv4 addresses get expensive.

2. Dual stack for a transition period, but who wants to double their network administration workload?

Hosting farms have very complicated setups for load balancing, firewalls, DNS etc. I wouldn't want to keep maintaining two sets of rules.
Services providers have complicated networks, do they want to start messing around much if they don't have to?

If you look at 6PE for MPLS service providers, you side step having to make changes in the IPv4 MPLS core, and you can easily add IPv6 at the edge for VPNs or even the global routing table.  6to4 can do some similar things, leveraging IPv4 networks.
I don't really consider 6to4 or 6PE as dual stack, except at the edge.

If I operate a large hosting site and want to start offering v6 (maybe so developing countries can reach me natively or whatever), I'm going to use an appliance or firewall that automates this process, leaving existing systems alone for the time being.

3. "Native" IPv6 Public Internet.  I would define this as the day one can safely put an AAAA record in DNS as the only entry, and expect anyone to reach it, with the onus on the querier to deal with the NAT'ing to IPv4 if necessary.  At this point it becomes redundant to return A records. I'm sure the IPv4 Internet will still be around but I would assume it would mainly be carrying tunneled v6 traffic over it. 



Davis, Terry L wrote: 

Jordi
 
I agree and I started to respond to a post week with a similar response and got distracted.
 
I can absolutely guarantee that the aviation industry expects the migration from v4 to v6 to take over 25 years.  We just expect to build airplanes that can deal with OSI, v4, and v6.  The global air traffic management system is made up of 10 of thousands of pieces controlled by approaching 1000 different organizations from small private operations to nations and v4 is already built into infrastructure pieces that are not likely to see communications upgrades for 10 to 20 years.  I routinely speak to aviation industry leaders on this and I generally place v4 end of life somewhere from 25 to 40 years out.
 
Likewise most critical infrastructure around the globe is the same; the SCADA that runs this today is mostly all v4 as are the hospital's (including Intensive Care Units) infrastructure around the world.  This type of infrastructure is much harder to convert than just corporate IT; it takes years of planning and scores of individual governmental design approvals/certifications to change it.
 
Take care
Terry
 
  

	-----Original Message-----
	From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es]
	Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:44 AM
	To: ppml at arin.net
	Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
	 
	Hi,
	 
	I already mention this in other threads (may be not in ppml).
	 
	IPv6 has been designed to coexist with IPv4 for an undetermined period of
	time. It is not expected to run *only* IPv4 since day one, and not all the
	stacks actually support this. In fact, many stacks are somehow hybrids
	instead of two-stacks, what it means that you can't disable IPv4 (of
	course
	you can let IPv4 "un-configured", which is almost equivalent).
	 
	This means that IPv4 will be here for a long time and dual-stack is the
	main
	transition technique. This will change with the time, at least in some
	networks, once IPv6 traffic become predominant, among other economic
	factors.
	 
	You always will have, at least for many years, old IPv4 boxes that can't
	be
	upgrades, and the easier way to reach them is if you run dual-stack, at
	least in the hosts in any LAN, instead of requiring translation. This
	doesn't mean public IPv4 addresses, as in most of the situations, private
	IPv4 behind NAT and global IPv6 will make it.
	 
	However, the question may be different for whatever is not an end-site LAN
	(for instance backbone, access, etc.), as there are already protocols such
	as softwires (basically L2TP), that allow you to automatically tunnel
	IPv4-in-IPv6 (or in the other way around today in most of the IPv4-only
	networks), in order to be able to handle the IPv4-only applications in an
	automatic fashion.
	 
	This is the case for some big networks (+5.000 sites) that we have where
	the
	initial deployment was completely dual-stack, and then we realized that
	because the kind of traffic was becoming predominantly IPv6, and most of
	the
	IPv4 traffic was basically going to Internet thru proxies, it make sense
	to
	turn the proxies dual-stack and carry that inside the complete network as
	IPv4-in-IPv6 (up to the proxy), so we had been able to disable IPv4
	everywhere (except in the LANs, for both clients and servers).
	 
	This is the model that I certainly believe will be the one as IPv6
	penetration becomes bigger and bigger, and then as indicated by Kevin,
	IPv4
	will vanish naturally ...
	 
	I've introduced the description of this scenario also in a document that
	I've circulated a few weeks ago
	(http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3004), as I believe
	that this will mean less trouble for possible "new" ISPs when IPv4
	addresses
	are gone or "almost" gone and at the same time will help existing ISPs to
	keep growing their networks without the need for asking for more IPv4
	addresses to the RIR.
	 
	Regards,
	Jordi
	 
	 
	 
	 
	    

		De: Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> <mailto:kkargel at polartel.com> 
		Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net> 
		Fecha: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:07:16 -0500
		Para: <PPML at arin.net> <mailto:PPML at arin.net> 
		Conversación: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
		Asunto: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
		 
		Why is there such a big push to drop IPv4?  Is there a reason that v4
		and v6 can't operate concurrently in perpetuity?  Won't the customers go
		where the content is and the content go where the money is?
		 
		I would suggest that if IPv6 is a good thing (and I firmly believe that
		it is) then networks will naturally gravitate to IPv6.  That being the
		case then let IPv4 die a natural death of attrition.  There is no need
		to murder it outright.
		 
		If in fact IPv4 continues to survive and thrive alongside IPv6 wouldn't
		that very fact demonstrate the need to keep it going and foster it?
		 
		It sounds like a lot of people have so little faith in the value of IPv6
		that they for some odd reason cinsider IPv4 a threat.   If IPv6 is
		better than IPv4 then people will use it.  If it isn't then they will
		stay where they are.  I see no reason to 'force' people to switch.  They
		will move when it is in their best interests to do so for features and
		markets.
		 
		 
		 
		 
		 
		      

			-----Original Message-----
			From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
			Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
			Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:51 PM
			To: bill fumerola; 'ARIN PPML'
			Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
			 
			 
			 
			        

				-----Original Message-----
				From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On
				          

			Behalf Of
			        

				bill fumerola
				Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:32 PM
				To: 'ARIN PPML'
				Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
				 
				 
				On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 05:09:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
				          

					OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin
					                

					simply removing
					              

					these records out of it's whois?  Which is what I am suggesting?
					                

					who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the
					              

			community
			        

					trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that
					              

			netblock
			        

					does something foolish.
					 
					as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as
					they're legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS
					service is more useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not
					              

			the legacy holder.
			        

					For now.  What about post-IPv4 runout?
					            

				i think you assume that ARIN's IPv4 services will change in
				          

			some major
			        

				way when that happens. i don't believe the memebership would
				          

			want that
			        

				change and the IPv6 fees at that point would cover
				          

			maintanence of those
			        

				'legacy' systems.  i'd imagine ripping the IPv4 components would be
				more costly than just maintaining them after any sort of:
				          

			ipv4 runout
			        

				of addresses by ARIN, ipv6 eclipse of ipv4, ipv4 runout of
				          

			addresses by
			        

				IANA, etc.
				 
				i would want to see the same level of service provided. no
				          

			difference
			        

				between legacy pre-ARIN holders and paid members.
				          

			So then if the membership doesen't want IPv4 to be removed
			from the registries, then what is going to be created is a
			situation where nobody has any incentive to remove their IPv4
			reachability, nor remove the ability for their customers to
			reach IPv4 sites.
			 
			In short, IPv4 will NEVER "go away"  Your proposing a future
			were we add IPv6, and nobody ever gives up IPv4 resources.
			So the Internet merely becomes an Internet of both IPv6 and
			IPv4, not an Internet of IPv4 only or an Internet of
			IPv6 only.
			 
			I'm not debating we could or couldn't do this technically.
			 
			However, if we do this, then don't you see that ALL IPv4
			holders, not just the legacy ones, will never have any
			incentive to drop IPv4.
			 
			If all of that is OK with you, then why would an existing
			paying IPv4 holder today who doesen't need numbering, want to
			bother going to IPv6?  After all you just said everyone will
			be maintaining their IPv4, so what need is there for an
			IPv4
			holder to load up IPv6?  The only incentive I see would be to
			reach a network that is IPv6 ONLY, such as a network that
			needs numbering post-IPv4 runout.
			This puts a terrible burden on these networks because since
			they are new, they cannot be reached by a lot of the
			Internet, and it is not likely that they can provide enough
			of an incentive to get IPv4-only holders to update to reach them.
			 
			Ted
			 
			 
			_______________________________________________
			This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy
			Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
			Manage your mailing list subscription at:
			http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
			 
			        

		_______________________________________________
		This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
		(PPML at arin.net).
		Manage your mailing list subscription at:
		http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
		      

	 
	 
	 
	**********************************************
	The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
	 
	Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
	http://www.ipv6day.org
	 
	This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
	confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
	individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
	that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
	information, including attached files, is prohibited.
	 
	 
	 
	_______________________________________________
	This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
	(PPML at arin.net).
	Manage your mailing list subscription at:
	http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
	    

_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(PPML at arin.net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070712/e64a7fc1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list