[arin-ppml] DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Thu Mar 26 17:51:39 EDT 2009


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: michael.dillon at bt.com
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy 
> (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> >
> > Then you are not looking very far, or more likely, you are not a 
> > network technical person and therefore feel no need to keep 
> up to date 
> > on the details of the technology. For at least ten years 
> now we have 
> > had interworking mechanisms that allow IPv6 networks to access the 
> > IPv4 Internet and vice versa. New ones are coming along all 
> the time 
> > such as 6VPE. There are no magic bullets, but there are 
> many ways of 
> > making interworking function well enough to keep a network operator 
> > growing and profitable.
> >
> >   
> I am very much a "network technical person", but that is 
> hardly relevant to the discussion.
> There are interworking mechanisms under development, a few 
> deployed, which allow IPv6-only hosts to access services that 
> are exclusively on the IPv4 Internet. Because dual-stack was 
> originally the primary solution to this problem, the early 
> approaches are few and far between, though development has 
> sped up significantly across several (probably too many) IETF 
> WGs. But as previous posters have pointed out, IPv6 was very 
> clearly not designed for interoperation with IPv4... instead 
> it was designed as an all new Internet protocol, and sold on 
> many features (automatic configuration, IPSEC, etc.) that 
> were interesting enough that
> IPv4 got them anyway (and a few that still aren't going to 
> happen, like ubiquitous worldwide IPv6 multicast), thus 
> reducing the perceived value of IPv6. Now, of course, we have 
> an emergency... IPv4 addresses will run out, and dual-stack 
> doesn't solve that problem at all.
> All methods that allow an IPv6 host to access the IPv4 
> address require somewhere between one IPv4 address at the 
> gateway (e.g., NAT64) and one
> IPv4 address per host (dual stack). None work in the case of 
> zero IPv4 addresses available for the deployer of the gateway or host.

There's lots and lots of service providers today with IPv4.  If
someone without IPv4 wants to get to an IPv4 network, they merely
pay a monthly access fee to the service provider that owns a 
gateway that goes between IPv6 and IPv4, and use IPv6 to get
to the service provider.

> I do agree that an existing network operator with IPv4 space 
> at their disposal will be able to use various techniques to 
> continuing growing. 
> Some operators (providers to consumer end-users) will have it 
> easier than others (hosting of services that require unique 
> IP addresses).
> New entrants will be at a significant disadvantage in that 
> there will be no PI space available from any RIR, so they 
> will be limited to either getting IPv4 space (possibly 
> overloaded via things like port-range sharing a la SHARA) 
> from their ISP or acquiring IPv4 space either via the 
> proposed transfer policy or via existing transfer mechanisms 
> (buying existing holder entities).
> >> Where does a hosted service that needs to deploy more servers to 
> >> serve increased demand from existing IPv4 clients get IPv4 
> addresses 
> >> from after the runout?
> >>     
> >
> > From a 6to4 gateway or from some type of NAT box such as NAT-PT.
> >   
> I don't think that's a viable solution. A service that needs 
> to deploy a new unique IPv4 address to a host that is 
> expected to be reachable from the legacy IPv4 Internet isn't 
> going to be able to use a NAT device to synthesize that new 
> address. 

Customer wants to field a server with an IPv4 address on it FINE.
Nothing is stopping them from going to an IPv4 gateway provider
and getting a static IPv4 address, and tunneling from their
server to that provider over the IPv6 Internet.

They can use portable IPv6 space on their server and have 
as much redundancy to the gateway provider as they want.
The gateway provider can have as much redundancy as it wants
to the remains of the IPv4 Internet, whatever that will end
up being.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list