Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
Hi, Of course, static IP address assignment is wasteful -- as demonstrated by your case (and justifying ones actions by pointing to others doing worse is seldom very effective), however a couple of questions/points:
Until IPv6 is widely used
Are any ISPs seriously considering deploying IPv6 in the forseeable future (e.g., what level of demand are ISPs in the US seeing for IPv6)?
and address space is not so critical, we have to conserve address space and using it wisely.
Address space will (presumably) always be critical -- after all, it is a bit hard to connect to the Internet without it. As such, using it wisely would seem a good idea. Of course, whether one needs to "conserve" address space and whether conservation implies wise use would depend on the answer to the question above and what one thinks will happen when the free address pool approaches exhaustion.
Perhaps in the UK there are different requirements for allocation of address space than InterNIC/ARIN.
Of course there are (look at why there are different regional registries in the first place). For example, what happens when a new ISP with no previous allocation history starts up in the US as compared to what happens when it starts up in Europe or the AP region. Other examples exist (the static IP address assignment issue isn't one of them -- all the registries have a similar policy now). These differences, however, are something the registries try to minimize and work to resolve internally. Too bad there can't be a public forum in which such stuff is worked on without the raving lunatics coming out of the woodwork and turning the forum into meaningless repetitive dribble. In response to the original statement that started this thread, I'd be interested to know how one would go about putting technological djinn back into their respective bottles. Blackhole feeds, et al, exist because they serve a purpose. Like any tool, they can be misused. I'm sort of suprised that some governments haven't already required ISPs in their countries to accept "official" black hole feeds, but I suspect it'll happen within the next year or so. Of course, many people wish nuclear weapons weren't invented too... Regards, -drc
In the big spam thread, David R. Conrad writes...
Until IPv6 is widely used
Are any ISPs seriously considering deploying IPv6 in the forseeable future (e.g., what level of demand are ISPs in the US seeing for IPv6)?
What backbone providers offer it? The transition to IPv6 is clearly going to have some difficulties. We are waiting on: 1. Network equipment, with translation 2. End user software 3. Address space assignment Either everything has to suddenly change to IPv6, or there has to be translation tools in place. The translation between the IPv4 subblock of IPv6 will be easy. But how much infrastructure will be ready to go by the time customers have to use IPv6-only space? Sure, proxy servers can allow some access, but many people will want full access. IPv6-only space is of less value than IPv4-private space until IPv6 becomes at least fully routeable over the Internet. So the backbone networks are going to have to take the lead to make it happen. Even when it is routeable, it has to work on all the ends, which will thus have to have translations to make their IPv4 space appear as IPv6sub4 space. The best workable scenario I can see so far is one where IOS and other routing software includes translation between IPv4 and IPv6s4 (I'll use this term for the IPv4 equivalent sub block of IPv6 until someone tells me there is a preferred term). Backbones need to become IPv6 capable first, including the MAEs and NAPs, then any IPv6 interfaces can reach other IPv6. Step two is to transition the IPv4 services, like major web sites, to IPv6s4. These services want to be full reachable, so as soon as we can get users on IPv6, they will want to be on IPv6s4. To get users into the IPv6 space, it may require a pricing differential. It will require something. We still have many users running Windows 3.1 and some even running just DOS. If ISPs drop the IPv6 price, they lose money. They'd rather their customers just stay on IPv4 (or IPv6s4) in that case. If ISPs raise the IPv4 (or IPv6s4) price, they lose customers to some other ISP that didn't. Something is thus needed to encourage customers to move into IPv6 even when it is fully routeable. Since this is a network operation issue forum, the focus here should be on how to handle this in the networks. To me, this part doesn't seem all too technically difficult, once the software is available to handle it. But just having IOS translating IPv4 <-> IPv6s4 is not enough. We will need to manage the new IPv6 network. All the various tools we use will need to understanding IPv6 and how it it configured on the network. Routing will have to work right even during the transition to this, which means BGP4v6 has to be there capable of understanding IPv6 space at some point in time. Routing issues will become different in IPv6. If IPv6 allocations will have varying sizes like CIDR, then we might continue to have issues of size based route filtering. OTOH, with the right methods of allocating IPv6 space, no one should ever have to come back to get more space. Eventually that should mean fewer routes as IPv4/IPv6s4 closes down. Route filtering should be encouraged on IPv4 space and prohibited on IPv6 space, at that point, IMHO. -- Phil Howard | eat60me8@spam4mer.com eat1this@spam6mer.net no5way37@no5where.net phil | eat8this@dumb9ads.org stop6342@spam5mer.edu w4x5y4z8@dumbads8.edu at | stop7it4@no3place.org die1spam@s3p3a6m6.com no1spam6@nowhere0.com milepost | no75ads0@anyplace.edu no5spam4@anyplace.net stop1736@s6p9a3m7.org dot | no23ads8@nowhere0.edu stop6it3@s8p9a7m3.net blow4me1@no2place.com com | w0x5y9z7@spam2mer.com no9spam5@lame0ads.org stop5722@spammer8.org
At 09:07 AM 11/1/97 -0600, Phil Howard wrote:
Something is thus needed to encourage customers to move into IPv6 even when it is fully routeable.
[playing devil's advocate here] Of course, there is a rather large contingent of the Internet community that is of the opinion that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem. - paul
Of course, there is a rather large contingent of the Internet community that is of the opinion that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem.
Amen to that. I (and I think many others) still have yet to understand what that aborted child of OSI has to offer us. -- Peter Galbavy @ Home in Wonderland http://www.wonderland.org/ http://www.whirl-y-gig.org.uk/ http://www.demon.net Be remembered not for your final destination, but for your journey.
The only use I can see is in China, or India, where you want to use a billion addresses and still have enough room to make management relatively easy. ...Scott -- Scott Brim, Newbridge Networks Inc. swb@newbridge.com +1.607.273.5472
Paul Ferguson writes...
[playing devil's advocate here]
Of course, there is a rather large contingent of the Internet community that is of the opinion that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem.
And we can most certainly go for a long time with IPv4. Just how long that will be depends on things like new technologies coming along that can impact how people use the Internet. IPv4 space is not enough for dedicating 1 IP address to every person. The question is when (or if) that will be needed. Under the current user paradigm of dialing up to a provider for a short while to surf, it may be indefinite. And that demand will be rolling off to level out at some point in the U.S. There are also increased costs involved in the processes being used to manage allocations of IPv4 space. Space is allocated in pieces as needed, which means either renumbering networks or introducing more routes into the BGP4 stream. One big /64 of IPv6 space will last virtually any ISP a century, unless they start trying to assign every grain of sand. And there would be just one route for all that. Administrative costs, once the software is in place that handles it, will be much less than with IPv4 space. With IPv4 space being managed better with CIDR, we do have more time to find the right way to deploy IPv6. I remember the panic of a few years ago. I was even called to ask if my then-employer would be able to return part of their class B assignment. The big problem I see today is not the amount of space, but the complexity of managing tight space, and things like the number of routes involved. Whether to IPv6 or not, maybe we should be looking at what next for BGP4. -- Phil Howard | stop2ads@spammer1.edu a9b1c1d6@spam6mer.net stop0029@no7where.com phil | eat68me5@no3place.net stop5565@spammer7.net w4x2y5z9@spammer5.com at | no22ads7@no2where.com stop7it1@dumb8ads.edu no2way80@no9place.net milepost | blow0me4@lame2ads.edu eat4this@dumb7ads.org suck4it2@no4where.org dot | no1way72@nowhere0.com ads0suck@lame5ads.net stop9729@no33ads6.org com | no2spam6@anywhere.edu end3it91@no68ads8.edu end9ads2@noplace3.com
Hi, Perhaps I'm being rather naive, but one of the really cool things about the initial 6bone test address space was that the prefix was completely AS based.. theoretically if an adressing scheme was adopted that did not permit transferrible address space (think NAT) the entire backbone routing table could be simply composed of AS paths and relationship's between AS's. (if an addressing scheme based on AS or some kind of AS equivalent was adopted) Ofcourse AS's all of a sudden become a hot commodity.. but today, most routing policy is dictated based on AS more than by address space.. nm
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote:
[playing devil's advocate here]
Of course, there is a rather large contingent of the Internet community that is of the opinion that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem. - paul
Is that why Cisco is one of the few networking companies that participate in the 6bone? :) Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote:
[playing devil's advocate here]
Of course, there is a rather large contingent of the Internet community that is of the opinion that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem.
Is that why Cisco is one of the few networking companies that participate in the 6bone? :)
Participation in 6bone != belief that IPv6 is the solution to the problems of today. After all, some of us like hallucinogenic hobbies. -dorian
participants (8)
-
David R. Conrad -
Dorian R. Kim -
Joe Shaw -
Nikos Mouat -
Paul Ferguson -
Peter Galbavy -
Phil Howard -
Scott W Brim