<br>I am really trying to understanding the point of a straw poll based on IPv4, a dodo of a resource?? Am I correct in thinking that any industry planning to use a dodo will probably join the extinct species too. :)<div><br>
</div><div>Rudi Daniel<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:21:27 +0100<br>
From: <<a href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric<br>
energy industry<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458037454DE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net">28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458037454DE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
> If your interested in such a policy I would suggest you<br>
> contact Sensus <a href="http://www.sensus.com/" target="_blank">http://www.sensus.com/</a> who supplied the meters<br>
> that PGE used, and ask them if they use IP addressing.<br>
> PGE uses AMI meters using FlexNet:<br>
<br>
They do.<br>
<<a href="http://www.sensus.com/Module/PressRelease/PressReleaseFileFile?id=84" target="_blank">http://www.sensus.com/Module/PressRelease/PressReleaseFileFile?id=84</a>><br>
Sensus Announces IP-based Smart Grid for FlexNet<br>
Industry-leading FlexNet Solution addresses IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints on<br>
powerful<br>
and secure, licensed band, wireless Smart Grid and AMI Network<br>
<br>
The purpose of such a policy is to protect the rest of the IP using<br>
organizations from new entrants who want to use LARGE AMOUNTS of<br>
IPv4 addresses. We have already reached the end game of IPv4. There<br>
is not enough left for everybody. Those who already have IPv4 network<br>
dependencies should be served first by ARIN, and the rest should use<br>
IPv6. That is the reason for banning the entire Smart Grid industry<br>
from receiving globally registered IPv4 addresses. Of course, they<br>
can use all the RFC 1918 IPv4 addresses that they want, and they can<br>
get all the globally registered IPv6 addresses that they want.<br>
<br>
But the IPv4 watering is almost dried up and they are not welcome<br>
to join us.<br>
<br>
--Michael Dillon<br>
<br>
P.S. this is only a straw poll discussion at present, to see how<br>
people feel about an industry whose plans could cause IPv4 runout<br>
to happen suddenly with only a couple of months notice.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:31:29 -0700<br>
From: Ted Mittelstaedt <<a href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">tedm@ipinc.net</a>><br>
To: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric<br>
energy industry<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4ACB54C1.1050109@ipinc.net">4ACB54C1.1050109@ipinc.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
William Herrin wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:50 PM, <<a href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Basically, what I am suggesting is that we introduce a special policy<br>
>> that bans the Electric Utility industry from receiving any IPv4<br>
>> addressing at all, either direct ARIN allocations or ISP assignments,<br>
>> if those addresses are intended for any kind of Smart Grid<br>
>> application.<br>
><br>
> Michael,<br>
><br>
> I would not support a ban that targets a single industry but I would<br>
> support a ban on IPv4 address allocations for _embedded systems_ of<br>
> any sort that do not function as publicly accessible Internet servers.<br>
> To include cell phones and game consoles. And a cut-off date by which<br>
> folks holding public addresses for such a purpose must recover and<br>
> reallocate those addresses before they can get any more from ARIN.<br>
><br>
<br>
I like this approach as well.<br>
<br>
Ted<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:33:26 -0500<br>
From: "Mikel Kline" <<a href="mailto:mkline@segainc.com">mkline@segainc.com</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric<br>
energy industry<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:E079CF4DBD5347DABE929DDC88AA45EC@SEGAINC.COM">E079CF4DBD5347DABE929DDC88AA45EC@SEGAINC.COM</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I think that most electric utilities are much smarter than they appear to be<br>
getting credit for in this thread; even though this may be a newer evolution<br>
for them. Most utilities in North America are becoming very much aware of<br>
these addressing issues as a result of Critical Infrastructure Protection<br>
regulations and the implementation of mandated cyber security regimes. Our<br>
clients are looking at IPv6 as the natural course of development rather than<br>
IPv4. Many already support dual stacks on their networks today.<br>
<br>
I am very much opposed to this Chicken Little approach to a special policy<br>
that bans public access to utility companies for Smart Grid applications.<br>
It's unnecessary and unduly discriminatory.<br>
<br>
I believe that we'll run out of IPv4 addresses long before the Smart Grid<br>
applications become a widespread consumer of public IP addresses.<br>
<br>
<returning to lurk mode><br>
<br>
Mikel Kline<br>
Sega Inc.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:56:33 -0700<br>
From: Ted Mittelstaedt <<a href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">tedm@ipinc.net</a>><br>
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <<a href="mailto:ppml@rs.seastrom.com">ppml@rs.seastrom.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric<br>
energy industry<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4ACB5AA1.90202@ipinc.net">4ACB5AA1.90202@ipinc.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:<br>
<br>
> t there is a compelling case for globally unique<br>
> addresses on power meters - outsourcing of bill generation and<br>
> collection.<br>
<br>
The utility metering schemes - such as the sensus<br>
scheme I posted that is in operation, on real live gear - clearly<br>
have the meters on a completely private network. The cost to<br>
putting that network on the Internet would be more than just<br>
extending a private circuit from it to a 3rd party billing<br>
org.<br>
<br>
I realize someone could probably make a case for putting your<br>
refrigerator on the Internet. But, just because you can do<br>
something, doesn't mean you should do something.<br>
<br>
If you can come up with an actual in-production scheme that<br>
in in service in a utility in the United States that has the<br>
meters on the public Internet, with each meter running it's<br>
own IP address, then I'll agree you have a point, otherwise I<br>
think the supposition is as ridiculous as putting your<br>
refrigerator on the Internet.<br>
<br>
No wonder you don't want to discuss PGE. There's a gulf between<br>
theory and implementation, and this chicken-little scenario<br>
concerns theory.<br>
<br>
As the guy from the Midwest said, "Show me!"<br>
<br>
> It's also not uncommon for a utility to have a<br>
> sufficiently large number of meters that they won't all fit in<br>
> <a href="http://10.0.0.0/8" target="_blank">10.0.0.0/8</a> even assuming really optimistic subnet engineering.<br>
><br>
<br>
Even more reason to not assign IP addressing to the meters<br>
themselves. In the Sensus scheme the online literature on it only<br>
says the antenna controller that all the meters report to in a<br>
given area has an IP address on it.<br>
<br>
Ted<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:01:25 +0100<br>
From: <<a href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric<br>
energyindustry<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803745B74@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net">28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803745B74@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
> Most<br>
> utilities in North America are becoming very much aware of<br>
> these addressing issues as a result of Critical<br>
> Infrastructure Protection regulations and the implementation<br>
> of mandated cyber security regimes. Our clients are looking<br>
> at IPv6 as the natural course of development rather than<br>
> IPv4. Many already support dual stacks on their networks today.<br>
<br>
Anecdotal evidence indicates that while SOME people in the<br>
electric utility industry are aware of this, there are a lot<br>
who are not aware and the awareness is not embedded in their<br>
organizational memories yet. Note that dual stack is just as<br>
bad as plain IPv4 in this context because there will not be<br>
enough IPv4 addresses to dual-stack the whole Smart Grid.<br>
<br>
> I am very much opposed to this Chicken Little approach to a<br>
> special policy that bans public access to utility companies<br>
> for Smart Grid applications.<br>
> It's unnecessary and unduly discriminatory.<br>
<br>
Perhaps policy is unecessary, but publicity is not.<br>
And this proposed policy is NOT unduly discriminatory. It is,<br>
in fact, duly and specifically discriminatory based on the<br>
reality that we DO NOT HAVE enough IPv4 addresses to populate<br>
the whole of the Smart Grid, and that giving the electric<br>
utilities a big chunk of what is left, would impose undue<br>
hardship on the Internet industry as a whole.<br>
<br>
Fact is, that everybody is expecting IPv4 to last another<br>
couple of years and many of us have been testing and trialing<br>
IPv6 with that date in mine. If the Smart Grid folks come<br>
along and take a big chunk of address space, that will bring<br>
the date forward materially.<br>
<br>
In any case, there is no need to actually create this policy<br>
because even if the Smart Grid folks show up tomorrow and<br>
fully justify their /7 allocation, many ISPs will be applying<br>
for injunctions against them, and ARIN before the week is out.<br>
<br>
> I believe that we'll run out of IPv4 addresses long before<br>
> the Smart Grid applications become a widespread consumer of<br>
> public IP addresses.<br>
<br>
In which case, the Smart Grid folks should be happy to support<br>
a policy which bans them from receiving globally registered<br>
IPv4 addresses since it makes the road ahead much clearer. They<br>
can focus on IPv6 only, and drop the complexities of IPv4 and<br>
dual stack.<br>
<br>
--Michael Dillon<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:10:27 +0100<br>
From: <<a href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric<br>
energy industry<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803745BB0@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net">28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803745BB0@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
> I realize someone could probably make a case for putting your<br>
> refrigerator on the Internet. But, just because you can do<br>
> something, doesn't mean you should do something.<br>
<br>
"On the Internet" doesn't necessarily mean what you think. When<br>
100% of homes and businesses have fixed-line Internet connectivity<br>
by fiber or copper, does it make sense to run more wires just for<br>
the meter? Of course not!<br>
<br>
"One the Internet" might mean addressable on the IPv6 Internet<br>
so that they can access it via Tinc <<a href="http://tinc-vpn.org/" target="_blank">http://tinc-vpn.org/</a>><br>
or some similar VPN system.<br>
<br>
Yes, I know that we do not have 100% connectivity today, but that<br>
is the way that things are headed. Give it another 20 years, and<br>
the only buildings with no fixed-line Internet connectivity in<br>
North America will be the ones that are not on the electric<br>
grid.<br>
<br>
> If you can come up with an actual in-production scheme that<br>
> in in service in a utility in the United States that has the<br>
> meters on the public Internet, with each meter running it's<br>
> own IP address, then I'll agree you have a point, otherwise I<br>
> think the supposition is as ridiculous as putting your<br>
> refrigerator on the Internet.<br>
<br>
I never said that Smart Grid was more than a plan today. It is<br>
a dangerous plan that could end up being accelerated at great<br>
detriment to us in the next couple of years. On the other hand<br>
if we act now, we can prevent the damage and help the Smart Grid<br>
folks to put their effort and resources in the right technology,<br>
namely IPv6.<br>
<br>
I make no secret about this banning policy being a premptive<br>
strike to prevent a POTENTIAL future problem, not an actual<br>
present day problem.<br>
<br>
--Michael Dillon<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 52, Issue 4<br>
****************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Rudi Daniel<br>Independent Consultants<br><a href="http://www.svgpso.org">http://www.svgpso.org</a><br><a href="http://danielcharles.weebly.com">http://danielcharles.weebly.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>