--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:40 -0800 Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against something that really doesn't impact them.
Perhaps it is because in the perception of the operator community, we do not believe it will not impact us. The reality is that once registered ULAs become available, the next and obvious step will be enterprises that receive them demanding that their providers route them. Economic pressure will override IETF ideal, and, operator impact is the obvious result.
This argument is basically saying that the RIR membership knows it is forcing allocation policies that are counter to the market demand. The only way ULAs could be considered for grey market PI use is due to lack of any alternative mechanism to meet the real customer requirement for independence.
Well... I'm saying, at least, that I'd rather change the RIR policy and work in an open and consistent manner based on input from the operational community and other stakeholders than have the IETF start setting allocation policy for PI space while pretending that isn't what is happening. If the IETF wants to set such a policy for UGA, then, fine, let's do that. However, pretending that it's not globally routable and trying to use that as an excuse to slide this into position is a fallacy that ignores the real world implications.
The current problem is that the RIR membership has self-selected to a state where they set policies that ensure the end customer has no alternative except to be locked into their provider's address space. Everyone acknowledges that the demand for PI space is real while simultaneously refusing to seriously deal with it (and the re-architecting of fundamental assumptions about the Internet effort of multi6, while serious, is not a short term solution).
This is absolutely not true. RIPE allocates /24s and smaller. I don't know APNICs current MAU. ARIN will allocate /22s and will probably consider smaller allocations either at the next meeting or the one after that.
My to-do list for the next couple of weeks has an item to ask for a BoF at the next IETF on an interim moderately aggregatible PI approach. I cc'd the Internet ADs since this is as good a time as any to start the process. I have a proposal on the table, but I care more about a real solution than I do about that specific approach. At the same time I continue to get comments like: 'Your geographic addressing proposal (draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-07.txt) is very attractive to us (it's pretty much ideal, really)', so it probably makes a good starting point for discussion.
Agreed. I'd like to see a real solution that allows any organization that wants to multihome to get PI space or have us solve the underlying problems so that address portability becomes irrelevant (better, I think, in the long term). As I see it, IP Addresses are currently used for the following purposes: Destination Endpoint Identifier (resolvable by requiring a solid directory service) Source Endpoint Identifier (mostly doesn't matter when this changes) Source Endpoint Authentication (this is bad and we should be using something better that actually identifies the host (or better yet in most cases, user) in a meaningful way) Host authorization (Same issue(s) as previous statement) Portion of Service authorizatoin decisions (again, same issues as previous two) In the early days of the ipng working group, there was hope that v6 would solve these issues. Sadly, after rejecting TUBA because it didn't solve these things, v6 has devolved into a similar failure. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:40 -0800 Tony Hain <alh- ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against something that really doesn't impact them.
Perhaps it is because in the perception of the operator community, we do not believe it will not impact us. The reality is that once registered ULAs become available, the next and obvious step will be enterprises that receive them demanding that their providers route them. Economic pressure will override IETF ideal, and, operator impact is the obvious result.
This argument is basically saying that the RIR membership knows it is forcing allocation policies that are counter to the market demand. The only way ULAs could be considered for grey market PI use is due to lack of any alternative mechanism to meet the real customer requirement for independence.
Well... I'm saying, at least, that I'd rather change the RIR policy and work in an open and consistent manner based on input from the operational community and other stakeholders than have the IETF start setting allocation policy for PI space while pretending that isn't what is happening. If the IETF wants to set such a policy for UGA, then, fine, let's do that. However, pretending that it's not globally routable and trying to use that as an excuse to slide this into position is a fallacy that ignores the real world implications.
ULAs are clearly routable over whatever scope people decide to. This was also true of the SiteLocal prefix that ULAs are replacing. The only difference is that ULAs have explicit text to avoid routing ambiguity where SL didn't. I argued against deprecating SL partly on the basis that it had the potential for ambiguity which would be a disincentive for grey-market PI use. I understand and agree with your point about them being a potential problem, but that potential is easily mitigated by providing an economically viable alternative.
The current problem is that the RIR membership has self-selected to a state where they set policies that ensure the end customer has no alternative except to be locked into their provider's address space. Everyone acknowledges that the demand for PI space is real while simultaneously refusing to seriously deal with it (and the re-architecting of fundamental assumptions about the Internet effort of multi6, while serious, is not a short term solution).
This is absolutely not true. RIPE allocates /24s and smaller. I don't know APNICs current MAU. ARIN will allocate /22s and will probably consider smaller allocations either at the next meeting or the one after that.
None of the organizations that are getting long IPv4 allocations will qualify for an IPv6 prefix. There is an implicit concession that it is too late to close the barn door for IPv4, but for IPv6 it is currently locked tight by those that want to maintain control.
My to-do list for the next couple of weeks has an item to ask for a BoF at the next IETF on an interim moderately aggregatible PI approach. I cc'd the Internet ADs since this is as good a time as any to start the process. I have a proposal on the table, but I care more about a real solution than I do about that specific approach. At the same time I continue to get comments like: 'Your geographic addressing proposal (draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-07.txt) is very attractive to us (it's pretty much ideal, really)', so it probably makes a good starting point for discussion.
Agreed. I'd like to see a real solution that allows any organization that wants to multihome to get PI space or have us solve the underlying problems so that address portability becomes irrelevant (better, I think, in the long term).
Multi-homing is only one reason for PI space, and people get so hung up on that one that they forget that the simple ability to change providers without massive effort is just as important.
As I see it, IP Addresses are currently used for the following purposes:
Destination Endpoint Identifier (resolvable by requiring a solid directory service) Source Endpoint Identifier (mostly doesn't matter when this changes) Source Endpoint Authentication (this is bad and we should be using something better that actually identifies the host (or better yet in
most
cases, user) in a meaningful way) Host authorization (Same issue(s) as previous statement) Portion of Service authorizatoin decisions (again, same issues as previous two)
In the early days of the ipng working group, there was hope that v6 would solve these issues. Sadly, after rejecting TUBA because it didn't solve these things, v6 has devolved into a similar failure.
Failure is too strong a term, but it is true that work is not complete. The issue is many assumptions have been made at all layers of the system about the alignment of all those characteristics, so just ripping them out doesn't really solve anything more than the routing problem. Even if the multi6 follow-on groups come up with a technical approach that splits the functions, all the rest of the infrastructure will need to adapt and that will take much longer than rolling out IPv6. Making a change that intentionally breaks fundamental assumptions will meet much greater deployment resistance than something that intentionally minimized such changes. Call the intentional minimization a failure if you must, but from my perspective the only real failure will be to let the Internet collapse into something less capable of delivering end user services than X.25 was. Tony
participants (2)
-
Owen DeLong -
Tony Hain