[arin-ppml] Just a reminder of some quick mathematicsfor IPv4that shows the long term impossibility of it

[Chris Engel]

Ted,

> > Even though I enjoy healthy debate as much as anyone, I'm not sure
> > what the point or relevance of this thread is?
> 
> The point is that IPv4 isn't going to work to get the rest of the
> world online.  Sorry it's degenerating into a NAT debate but the
> NAT proponents seem to think that NAT will allow IPv4 to be
> used forever on the Internet.
> 

Even if true, why does that matter?  If 30 years from now if IPv6, for whatever reason, should prove insufficient to the planets internet needs does that mean that 30 years of policy regarding it will have been wasted? No one posses a crystal ball to see with perfect clarity what the future holds. Generally policy should reflect immediate needs with the understanding that it may need to be modified in future if those needs change.

> > Some participants
> > here view universal end-to-end connectivity as an important goal and
> > as such NAT being significantly harmful to the internet. Others of us
> > believe that goal is not particularly desirable and possibly even
> > harmful to the interests of a portion of the community....and thus
> > NAT has significant utility that outweighs any potential harm.
> >
> > Much like politics or religion, I don't believe either side will be
> > effective in changing the others beliefs no matter how much verbiage
> > is expended in the effort. That seems evident by the number of times
> > this particular discussion has taken place on this list.  Is it
> > possible to simply agree to disagree on the utility/harm of NAT and
> > set aside that portion of the discussion?
> >
> > Can we simply agree that at this particular point in time IPv4
> > address space continues to have some value/use to a significant
> > portion of the internet community?
> >
> 
> So it's the "I've got mine Jack to bad there ain't any left for you"
> approach?
> 

What are you talking about here? No one can manufacture more IPv4 then currently exists to assign to those who don't have it yet. They can however present you with a choice as to whether you want IPv6 space or whether you want some "limited subset" of IPv4 functionality behind something like CGN. If there is some genuine value to either then the dynamics of a free market will ensure that such choices are available. In the long run, companies don't succeed by offering their clients inferior products.....and if they do, their competitors have only themselves to blame for not making a compelling enough case to consumers about the advantages of their own products. Would you prefer rule by fiat? 

> > If we can generally agree on that proposition, then it seems clear
> > that ARIN still has some responsibility for setting policies in
> > regards assignment of that space. The question of whether the rest of
> > the worlds population of human's, llama's or house flies will be able
> > to access the internet through IPv4 strikes me as entirely tangential
> > to that point.
> >
> 
> Since ARIN has essentially completed assignment of that space, there
> is really not much left to set as policy in the IPv4 realm other
> than continued interference in transfers of IPv4 from one to the
> other party.
> 
> > FWIW, my particular hope is that IPv6 see's a steady increase in
> > adoption so that people who do value publically addressable space can
> > get it, IF they want it....and that NAT&  IPv4 (and maybe even NAT66)
> > continue to be available to those of us who prefer it as an option.
> 
> But those NATs will NOT continue to be available to those of us
> who prefer them because they require IPv4 to go on the "outside" of
> the NAT.

Please explain, this isn't clear?

> 
> > The world is a diverse place, I don't see why the internet should not
> > reflect that diversity in being able to cater to a varied and
> > sometimes conflicting set of interests. Yes, that adds to the
> > complexity of the system from an engineering standpoint....but so
> > does manufacturing more then one size of shoe.
> >
> 
> Sounds good so let's go ahead and run IPX on the Internet too... since I
> like that old Netware protocol better than IP.  So I should be arguing
> for ISPs to all enable it on their routers based on backwards
> compatibility, using that logic.
> 

No one is stopping you...nor should they have the right to do so.  No one has the right to tell anyone else what packets to run on their own network segments. If what you are doing proves problematic, you may find your segment isolated and not much traffic routed through it... but if you can manage to make it work well enough for the people using it, why should anyone be able to dictate to you the details of exactly how you achieve that?

> The fact of the matter is that what other people choose to do DOES
> affect you, the Internet is not some wild west network where there is
> no law and governance and you Chris can do as you damn well please.
> 
> Every time someone else brings up another AS it uses a piece of ram in
> MY router.  Every time I subnet the advertisements of my own AS and
> prepend some and not others to balance my load it uses a piece of ram
> in YOUR router.  Like it or not, we are tied to each other.
> 

Um....as far as I am aware....we are responsible for how our individual routers work....we can certainly choose NOT to carry a particular route in it if we want.....and we can certainly choose to drop/block/filter particular packets going across our boundaries if we choose. There are consequences for us making poor choices of course....but that doesn't mean we don't have any choice.

> How well do you think the US highway system would work if every state
> was allowed to set their own highway widths?  Or set their own standards
> on what color vehicle brake lights would be?  Would you like to get a
> ticket in my state for having an amber directional signal on the back
> of your car instead of red?

Actually, the US highway system works alot like that. Different states have different speed limits set, different regulations for what you can do while driving (in my state you can get ticketed for talking on the cell phone while driving or having tinted glass, in others you can't) and of course once you get off of PUBLIC roads and onto PRIVATE ones, there is an entirely different set of rules governing their use. Note that the US Highway system is PUBLICALY funded, which is a big differentiator.

> 
> This is why the Internet cannot reflect the world's diversity in it's
> protocols.  You can be as diverse as you want with website content and
> suchlike but the value of the Internet is that everyone is talking
> with the same protocols.  We currently have a problem with one of them
> right now and we have a plan in place to change it that was set up
> a decade ago that all the major networks have signed on to doing - and
> what is going on is a few malcontents out there who were asleep at the
> switch and are too lazy to educate themselves about how IPv6 works
> now want to derail that plan by pretending CGN will allow us to ashcan
> IPv6 and keep IPv4 going in perpetuity.
> 
> It is one thing to regard CGN as transitional and admit you have a
> grotty infrastructure that needs it that you can't replace just right
> now, but you are going to soon.  It is quite another to claim that it
> is reasonable that CGN will allow IPv4 to be a permanent future protocol
> on the Internet, but that is what your doing.
> 
> Ted

I certainly have no ability to stop anyone from deploying IPv6 that wants to.... wouldn't try if I could. If people are CHOOSING something else over IPv6...then the only people who are to blame for that are the designers, proponents and vendors of IPv6 solutions for not offering a compelling enough reason/argument for people to CHOOSE IPv6.  Don't blame others for your inability to convince people of your vision for the future.


 Christopher Engel (representing only my own views)