On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stack
I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there? A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2 address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stack
I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2 address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to want to have their own global IPv4 addresses. We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS. CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these are shared addresses. VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation. Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that. Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own at all?
if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area.
randy
...!6to4mx!m2xenix!randy Aled
that would be a throwback, if my MTA supported full-length bangpaths. On 19-12-04 01 h 56, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com <mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of > their own at all?
if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area.
randy
...!6to4mx!m2xenix!randy
Aled
On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stack
I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2 address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to want to have their own global IPv4 addresses.
We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS. CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these are shared addresses. VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation. Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that. Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses.
Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though.... -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stack
I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2 address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to want to have their own global IPv4 addresses.
We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS. CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these are shared addresses. VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation. Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that. Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses.
Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though…
Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell nothing. Just because enterprises that established themselves in a IPv4-only world did it one way. It doesn’t mean that enterprises establishing themselves in a IPv4 / IPv6 world need to follow that model. Mark
-- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell nothing.
Other than the fact that a /24 is being advertised out of one AS and it's part of some other AS's /14 and looks suspiciously like a hijack? And we currently don't deal well with identifying and preventing true hijacks and mess up false positives a lot of the time?
On 4 Dec 2019, at 09:51, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell nothing.
Other than the fact that a /24 is being advertised out of one AS and it's part of some other AS's /14 and looks suspiciously like a hijack? And we currently don't deal well with identifying and preventing true hijacks and mess up false positives a lot of the time?
I’m curious if you actually read the example of use of another’s IPv4 address before starting talking about hijacking addresses? Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 3/12/19 17:47, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stack
I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2 address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to want to have their own global IPv4 addresses.
We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS. CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these are shared addresses. VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation. Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that. Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses.
Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though…
Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell nothing.
Security? Privacy? It may or may not be a concern for you. But there are implications in doing so.
Just because enterprises that established themselves in a IPv4-only world did it one way. It doesn’t mean that enterprises establishing themselves in a IPv4 / IPv6 world need to follow that model.
As long as you do analyze the implications and trade-offs... -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
On 12/3/19 10:04 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though....
OTOH, many many organizations, especially outside of service providers, in fact DO such a thing. I'd suspect your average mid-size business these days really in fact does not "need" any IPv4 addresses to conduct their ordinary and even many extraordinary operations. As long as you can make IPv4 HTTP/HTTPS destinations work to handle the long tail of non-IPv6 web destinations out there, I bet most people wouldn't even notice, and the only reason the IT folks would notice would be during testing/troubleshooting or the fact that their machine suspiciously has no RFC1918 nor public IPv4 address configured on it. Most organizations do indeed outsource most of their IT functions in one way or another, and it's pretty easy these days to pick outsourcing partners for most common business needs that are indeed natively IPv6-enabled. The remainder probably run over HTTP/HTTPS, anyway, and are easily translatable at the service provider level. I'd certainly not (yet) say that that's a recommended configuration, but I suspect it would often work. I certainly have IPv6-only testbeds. There's a few groaners usually, but a surprisingly large amount of stuff "just works". -- Brandon Martin
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:12:27 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that. Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses.
Are you seriously trying to say "If you're a new company, there's no plausible reason for you to need your own IPv4 addresses, because there's no reason for you to have your own mail servers or web servers"? Because if it *were* true that people don't need v4 addresses so they can dual-stack, we wouldn't have a healthy market buying and selling v4 address space.
participants (7)
-
Aled Morris -
Brandon Martin -
Fernando Gont -
Large Hadron Collider -
Mark Andrews -
Randy Bush -
Valdis Klētnieks