[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

Paul E McNary pmcnary at cameron.net
Wed Sep 15 13:05:01 EDT 2021


I need to make a slight correction.
I am semi retired from our Internet company and my son runs the show.
He is a triple major Engineer and is PE certifiable in each of the 3 areas.
He says he has deployed IPv6 to subscribers.
But Simple and Cheap NO.
5 years and a complete forklift to all subscribers.
The issues happens at the head end router.
My son is an University educated Enginner.
His under graduate work was in Network Engineering.
He was offered a bypass of Master's Degree and go straight into PHD Network Engineering
Graduated Summa Cum Laude, so he's not an Idiot
Well maybe he is. He choose our WISP over the PHD.
He says IPv6 does work for the last mile but on our redundant backhaul loops it has some shortcomings.
And our multi-homing has some issues with IPv6.

Thought I would make these corrections.
Just an old, fat, grumpy guy and former Guru that has outlived his usefulness
Paul McNary

----- Original Message -----
From: "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
To: scott at solarnetone.org
Cc: "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:44:09 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

> On Sep 14, 2021, at 22:50 , scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 22:42 , scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Nobody I know has found a way to do lossless packing of 128 bits into a 32 bit field yet. Until you can achieve that, compatibility is rather limited.
>>>> 
>>>> Please present your solution here.
>>> 
>>> Encode it in four sequential packets, 32 bits per, and add logic to parse those malformed addresses in the routing daemons.
>> 
>> Either I’m missing something, or that’s not going to be functional when those 4 packets reach the IPv4-Only end host and it has to reply.
> 
> Maybe, but that is not the challenge you presented:)

Fair enough… In context, the challenge I presented was about getting an IPv4-only host with no changes to software to be able to engage
in bidirectional communication with remote hosts that live in a 128 bit address space. Yes, you are correct the the way I abbreviated my
expression of that particular challenge was not complete in itself without the additional context.

> Seriously, some manner of stateful 6/4 nat or header mangling is going to be required upstream of the legacy device to translate.

Yeah, but because of the way IPv4 has been implemented (protocols that embed addresses, expectations of dealing with rendezvous
hosts, NAT traversal assumptions, etc.), it turns out that evenstateful 6/4 NAT is unnecessarily hard and unreliable at best.

Owen

_______________________________________________
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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list