Re: An informal survey... round II
On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:
I.E. If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
John, Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24 holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, William Herrin wrote:
Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24 holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
Except when there are /24-holder outages, at which point their traffic gets hijacked by the /16 announcer. Would you want to trust some random company to not take advantage of that situation in any way (collection of passwords, sampling your web traffic, putting up a fake "your org" web site, etc.)? As a holey /16 announcer, would you want all the junk traffic that results from /24-holder outages? What if one of them was running NS's for a popular DNSBL, and their outage basically caused a DDoS attack against your network? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
At 9:12 AM -0400 8/30/07, William Herrin wrote:
On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:
I.E. If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
John,
Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24 holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain from the large blocks (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must beg/barter/borrow blocks from others which are several orders of magnitude smaller (e.g. /16 through /24) every week to continue growing... such obtained blocks would be announced into the routing system very rapidly as we try to keep IPv4 running post depletion of the free address pool. When this inflection point is reached, how much headroom do we have given equipment being deployed today? /John
At 9:12 AM -0400 8/30/07, William Herrin wrote:
On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:
I.E. If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
John,
Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24 holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain from the large blocks (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must beg/barter/borrow blocks from others which are several orders of magnitude smaller (e.g. /16 through /24) every week to continue growing... such obtained blocks would be announced into the routing system very rapidly as we try to keep IPv4 running post depletion of the free address pool. When this inflection point is reached, how much headroom do we have given equipment being deployed today?
/John Is there a possible revenue stream here for larger ISP's to begin charging their customers for not aggregating, and creating a penalty fee for each borken route? We're running out of IPv4 space (and I don't
John Curran wrote: think this can be solved with IPv4). We're running out of routes for the Cisco Sup2 engine (among others), but unless someone makes money on it, this won't be solved.
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:18:41 -0400 From: Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 9:12 AM -0400 8/30/07, William Herrin wrote:
On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:
I.E. If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
John,
Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24 holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain from the large blocks (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must beg/barter/borrow blocks from others which are several orders of magnitude smaller (e.g. /16 through /24) every week to continue growing... such obtained blocks would be announced into the routing system very rapidly as we try to keep IPv4 running post depletion of the free address pool. When this inflection point is reached, how much headroom do we have given equipment being deployed today?
/John Is there a possible revenue stream here for larger ISP's to begin charging their customers for not aggregating, and creating a penalty fee for each borken route? We're running out of IPv4 space (and I don't
John Curran wrote: think this can be solved with IPv4). We're running out of routes for the Cisco Sup2 engine (among others), but unless someone makes money on it, this won't be solved.
When customers start having problems due to router RIB and/or FIB overflow, they will seek other providers. So someone will make money and someone else will lose it. Economics works well when things break (hardware). Of course, what happens when there is simply no IPv4 space is another issue as there will be no new space for anyone. But some providers will run out of their allocations long before others. If those who run out have resources, the market in IPv4 addresses (which does not exist since addresses are just numbers and not property) will get very active and will provide its own incentives which may or may not be stabilizing or beneficial. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain from the large blocks (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must beg/barter/borrow blocks from others which are several orders of magnitude smaller (e.g. /16 through /24) every week to continue growing... such obtained blocks would be announced into the routing system very rapidly as we try to keep IPv4 running post depletion of the free address pool. When this inflection point is reached, how much headroom do we have given equipment being deployed today?
You have described a pretty desperate state of affairs. Given that the route announcements are part of the public record, this is tantamount to holding a press conference and telling everyone that your business is in a pretty desperate state and you are scrambling just to keep your head above water in the hopes that it will stave off disaster long enough for you to get a proper solution deployed. I wonder how many companies will let things get this bad when IPv6 is right here, right now, and mitigates against this kind of disastrous state of affairs? I wonder how many investment analysts will note that companies without a solid IPv6 deployment plan in 2008 and 2009, are likely to start hemorrhaging in 2010 as customers scramble to find a stable supplier before the inevitable day of doom? People keep saying that there is no business case for IPv6 when the answer is staring them in the face. Growing revenue is the absolute fundamental core of any business case, and in telecom companies that is generally directly tied into growing the network. If your fancy new IPTV home banking package deal depends on connecting new customers to your network, lack of IP addresses will stop your provisioning process dead in its tracks. And that stops growth dead in its tracks. And that shows that all the money that management invested in the fancy new IPTV home banking package was actually wasted (or shall we say misdirected) investment like all that fancy décor on the Titanic. In general, telecoms companies (read ISPs) are trying to move up the value chain, but any product which depends on network connectivity probably has a direct dependence on growing the network. This means it is directy dependent on a steady supply of fresh IP addresses. We stopped manufacturing IPv4 addresses a long time ago. ARIN and ICANN have issued end-of-life announcements for IPv4 addresses. Does it make any business sense at all to bet the farm on products which only work using IPv4 addresses? The fact is that IPv6 and IPv4 can interwork quite well so it is not a great technical feat to make IPv6 products that work. It certainly costs more up front to develop such products, but I doubt that anyone has done a real cost analysis comparing this to marketing costs, and other softer product development costs. Companies can introduce expensive products and still make money at it. Cutting prices to the bone is not the only way to make money. Engineers like to exclaim that IPv6 costs too much, but engineers rarely ever have the data to quantify exactly what that cost is and why it is too much. In fact, IPv6 doesn't cost too much. Lots of companies are using it today. Government agencies are installing it because the Federal government's GAO thinks that IPv6 is money well spent, i.e. it does NOT cost too much. IPv6 is appearing with more frequency on RFPs, not just in questions about future plans, but as a real requirement for service today. Many customers will be satisfied with Hexago boxes connected to your IPv4 network. More will be satisfied with Softwires across an IPv4 network. They will be exstatic if you offer 6PE over MPLS (or dual stack) and geographically diverse IPv6 peering. IPv6 is real and moaning about how hard it is will not make it go away, especially when it gets on your CEO's radar. --Michael Dillon P.S. rant directed at the IPv6 naysayers, not the many people on this list who are deploying IPv6 today or at least planning their deployments for next year.
Michael, On Aug 30, 2007, at 7:35 AM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
People keep saying that there is no business case for IPv6 when the answer is staring them in the face. Growing revenue is the absolute fundamental core of any business case, and in telecom companies that is generally directly tied into growing the network.
Can you point me to BT's IPv6 deployment plans? (A serious request. If you need an NDA, I'm happy to sign one) Thanks, -drc
People keep saying that there is no business case for IPv6 when the answer is staring them in the face. Growing revenue is the absolute fundamental core of any business case, and in telecom companies that is generally directly tied into growing the network.
Can you point me to BT's IPv6 deployment plans? (A serious request. If you need an NDA, I'm happy to sign one)
We have been doing IPv6 for many years now, running an IPv6 exchange and a tunnel broker and various other things. Some info is on our public website here http://www.ipv6.bt.com/index.html especially in the presentations section. And the presenters tend to include an email address on their slides so you don't need to bother going through me. But then I don't know what info you are interested in. If you still need something, email me offlist and I'll see what I can do. In addition to our old, old sub-TLA allocation and our exchange allocation, just yesterday we picked up another big IPv6 prefix from RIPE which will end up being used for commercial services in future. As you can guess, we are in process of shifting from test mode to production. When we counted up the days left until IPv4 exhaustion, we saw an ominous number so we've posted our IPv4 doomsday clock at http://penrose.uk6x.com/ I notice that the people at http://www.ipv6forum.com have adopted it for their homepage too. Even though there is not a lot of publicity surrounding it, I believe that there are very few IP transit network operators who haven't got solid IPv6 deployment plans being trialed right now. Considering Verizon's highly-connected position at the core of the IPv4 Internet, I would think that all it takes to cause a snowball effect, is for Verizon to start offering IPv6 transit and peering on the same terms as IPv4. If there is any company whose IPv6 plans we should be interested in, it is Verizon. --Michael Dillon
On 30-aug-2007, at 18:35, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
If there is any company whose IPv6 plans we should be interested in, it is Verizon.
AKA UUNET? They've been doing IPv6 for _years_. I got my first IPv6 tunnel from UUNET Netherlands way back when.
If there is any company whose IPv6 plans we should be interested in, it is Verizon.
AKA UUNET? They've been doing IPv6 for _years_. I got my first IPv6 tunnel from UUNET Netherlands way back when.
But when will all of Verizon, not just the UUNET parts, offer IPv6 transit and peering on roughly the same terms as IPv4 transit/peering? Tunnel brokers don't count. UUNET's AS701 was the best connected AS on the Internet according to various analyses. Verizon now has more than just UUNET in its portfolio so they are even more core to the IPv4 Internet than UUNET was. When Verizon offers native IPv6 access basically everywhere, this will have a major, major impact on the size and reach of the IPv6 Internet. It will also have a knock-on effect as Verizon peers (and pseudo peers who buy transit) connect their IPv6 networks to the IPv6 Internet. End user customers (businesses) will sit up and take notice of the IPv6 Internet. I also expect that people who report latency and hop-count analyses will also have some positive things to say about the IPv6 Internet after this happens. Let's not forget that we all depend on each other in this business, and although we collectively operate a very good IPv4 Internet, the IPv6 Internet is still just taking baby steps. We need a short period of exponential growth in the IPv6 Internet to make it ready for prime time. --Michael Dillon
William Herrin wrote:
On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:
I.E. If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
John,
Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24 holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
And when they withdraw the more specific or you glop them together in your fib in the name of agregation a 3rd party gets all their traffic? I'm sure that will work really well.
Regards, Bill Herrin
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24 holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
And when they withdraw the more specific or you glop them together in your fib in the name of agregation a 3rd party gets all their traffic? I'm sure that will work really well.
Only the next hop. The game to play is "I want to dump traffic to a neighboring AS who has more a chance of getting it to its relevant destination." Partial routes (eg, filtering on say a /24 boundary with a default route) already sort of gives you that. (Of course, that game is a pain in the ass to play at times..) Remember, BGP on the global internet isn't TE'ing "end to end". You're actually hoping the next hop you have in your routing table == closer to the destination than you. :) Adrian
participants (10)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Andrew D Kirch -
David Conrad -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Curran -
Jon Lewis -
Kevin Oberman -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
William Herrin