[arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

Thu Oct 29 01:23:42 EDT 2020

I agree that the underlying transport could be IPv6 rather than IPv4. If 
the development and use of this takes as much time as IPv6, IPv4 might be 
mostly out of use before it gets anywhere toward a standard.

However, the discussion seems to be mostly directed like CIDR and NAT 
before it toward a means to deal with IPv4 exhaust.  I see it entirely 
pointless if the underlying transport is IPv6, since IPv6 has enough 
addresses to last a very long time.  I would rather have the flat address 
space of IPv6 without any need for anything else, like this requires.

In fact, IPv6 if it ever got to the point of nearing exhaust could more 
easily have means to expand it, such as changing the local part from /64 
to fewer addresses on future assigned blocks when 2000::/3 or a 
later block such as 7000::/3 (the halfway point) exhausts.  Even the 
largest LAN does not come close to using a /64, so it could be made 
smaller and allow more addressing space.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, Mike Burns wrote:

> HI Albert,
>
> New IP does not require IPv4 nor is it limited to 32 bit address space.
> In fact, from my reading, address length may not even be fixed.
> In any case, this is still too far from any final form to really comment on its technical merits.
> Personally I find the use case fails to excite me and the dangers of putting more control into the network outweigh the benefits.
> But I am willing to hear more.
>
> And for this community, the appeal to the ITU to develop the overall architecture should be problematic, even if the IETF is the ultimate refiner of New IP's (Network 2030's) technical aspects.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
> PS Thanks for the video Milton.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of hostmaster at uneedus.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 10:47 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>
> This protocol is NOT an end to end protocol, and therefore divides addresses into 2 groups:
>
> 1) Directly addressable hosts, which are limited to the same 4.3B limit as IP4, the protocol used to transmit it, and limits the use of direct addresses to aware gateways of the "New IP".
>
> 2) Indirectly addressable hosts, which can be addressed ONLY by aware hosts and networks, which support does not currently exist, unlike IPv6, which does exist and provides for all hosts to be directly addressed.
>
> It really does not solve the lack of addresses in IPv4, as eventually even with hacks like this one, the address space will still exhaust, and lacks simple end to end addressing of every node.
>
> I love IPv6, as it allows direct addressing much like we had in the early days when it was common to give every machine a public address.  Had CIDR and NAT not been invented, or the threat of the Chinese Academic network exhausting several /8s in order to directly address all of their hosts, we would have faced exhaust many years earlier. That network wisely chose to go to IPv6 instead and has not faced a lack of addresses.
>
> They discussed the small uptake of IPv6.  However for the networks that I manage, IPv6 traffic is approaching 70% of all traffic.  Just turning it on in residental gateways has greatly increased the amount of IPv6 traffic, since most end user devices are already IPv6 ready. Most of the top email (gmail and others) support IPv6 MX hosts, and most of the streaming services and video conferencing services, and most of the top web sites as well support IPv6.
>
> I understand the "if it is not broke, dont fix it" idea.  However it is approaching 10 years from that date in February, 2011 when IPv4 exhausted when the last 5 /8s were given out in Miami.  It is time to start moving toward IPv6 adoption.
>
> I noticed that no exhaust projections regarding the "New IP" were discussed.  I suspect that is because it is likely to be less than a couple of decades, since the underlying transport is still IPv4.
>
> IPv6 is here NOW.  While many still do not like it, it is currently well supported in both hardware and software. I did have to "forklift upgrade"
> some hardware back in 2008 due to the US Federal Requirement to adopt IPv6. Even in 2008 everything supports it, including all major operating systems. This New IP would have to be developed, tested and then placed into operating systems, unlike IPv6 which is already here and currently being used by millions of hosts. For most networks, it is simply turning it on, or unblocking IPv6, since it is enabled by default.  Considering the slow upgrade cycle, it might take a very long time before "New IP" is even ready.
>
> Collisions in the RFC1918 space between merged organizations is also a big cost that those remaining on IPv4 incur. With IPv6, there is no collisions.  Getting rid of these tunnels for intra company communication has cured many of my headaches.
>
> While it is clear that there are many here at ARIN that disagree with me, I think that ARIN should continue to adopt strong policies to promote IPv6, so that we all can further reduce costs by turning off IPv4 sooner rather than later. Many hacks including CGnat have large costs that can be avoided by such a move, and if timing is right, you might even be able to recover some funds by selling your excess IPv4 to those who insist on staying IPv4 only.
>
> IPv4 holdouts need to realize that they are passing on costs to many other networks that must maintain IPv4 ability because of their choice to avoid IPv6.  Everyones cost will drop with the use of only one protocol, and due to the address limits in IPv4, it is clear that only IPv6 can be the long term answer.  It even reduces costs here at ARIN, as there are fewer transactions, since most orgs get their block and are then done for a very long time. Transfers alone must take a lot of staff time.
>
> For some I am preaching to the choir. Others are likely mad for again bringing up IPv6 which they seem to actively avoid.  It is clear, eventually the shear lack of addresses in IPv4 will be seen, and like those other conserving measures like CIDR and NAT, even things like this will not be able to avoid the hard limit of addresses in IPv4. To the holdouts, please consider that you are passing on costs larger than your savings to the collective community by your decision to avoid IPv4.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>> Here is a balanced discussion of the "New IP" idea (and it is just as idea at this point, not an actual protocol):
>>
>> Dr. Richard Li, of Futurewei Technologies and key proponent of
>> Huawei’s “New IP” proposal, and Andrew Sullivan, the President and CEO
>> of the Internet Society. IGP’s Dr. Milton Mueller moderates
>> https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/09/23/what-is-the-future-of-in
>> ternet-architecture/
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Anita N
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 9:52 AM
>> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy
>> ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by
>> Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>>
>> I have to chime in (not as part of the AC) that the protocol below is beyond insidious!
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Me, (okay, this is after a beer or two tonight) I was just having a
>>> discussion with some people the other night, and we were discussing
>>> the idea that a new protocol might even roll out at this rate before
>>> IPv6 is universally adopted...
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> You aren't the only one discussing a new protocol, one that contains
>>> features beyond more addresses which would provide incentive for
>>> deployment, as IPv6 notably failed to provide.  Not that I support the attempt below.
>>>
>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-a
>>> n -analy sis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>
>