Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?
[apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, Unfortunately so far I have only found Dutch (and French) sources, we would be happy to receive pointers to English texts on this. The Belgian Institute for Post and Telecom (BIPT) recently ran a consultation to evaluate the National IPv6 Workplan, which was released back in 2012. The deadline to comment had already passed, but I trust our Belgian community members to have found this via other sources in time to respond. http://www.bipt.be/public/files/nl/22027/Raadpleging_ipv6.pdf In this, there is one question in particular that caught our eye, number 6, which roughly translates to a question asking if the requirements in a Code of Conduct on the usage of CGN which was agreed in 2012 are still current and workable and whether or not this CoC should be reviewed. Further in the introduction of the consultation, chapter 1 (page 3), there is some more information on this agreement:
Om de eindgebruiker toch eenduidig te kunnen identificeren was er beslist om bijvoorbeeld het delen van een IP-adres te beperken tot maximaal 16 gebruikers en dit via een gedragscode die door de sector werd ondertekend.
Translation by me:
To identify users, it was agreed that sharing a single IP address would be limited to a maximum of 16 users and that this limit would be part of a code of conduct which would be signed by the industry”
So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful. As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you think this form of cooperation between the public and private sector as a way to expedite the deployment of IPv6? Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
Hi Marco, I think this is quite logic. An IP address with less ports that what RFCs specify, is not IP. It breaks lots of thinks and as many users you have sharing the same address, worst. I’m aware of other governments/regulators working in the same direction, even allowing only CGN with a maximum lifetime (about two years) and only if you are at the same time deploying IPv6. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net> Responder a: <marcoh@ripe.net> Fecha: viernes, 25 de noviembre de 2016, 12:01 Para: IPv6 WG <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: [ipv6-wg] Belgian limits on CGN/NAT? [apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, Unfortunately so far I have only found Dutch (and French) sources, we would be happy to receive pointers to English texts on this. The Belgian Institute for Post and Telecom (BIPT) recently ran a consultation to evaluate the National IPv6 Workplan, which was released back in 2012. The deadline to comment had already passed, but I trust our Belgian community members to have found this via other sources in time to respond. http://www.bipt.be/public/files/nl/22027/Raadpleging_ipv6.pdf In this, there is one question in particular that caught our eye, number 6, which roughly translates to a question asking if the requirements in a Code of Conduct on the usage of CGN which was agreed in 2012 are still current and workable and whether or not this CoC should be reviewed. Further in the introduction of the consultation, chapter 1 (page 3), there is some more information on this agreement: > Om de eindgebruiker toch eenduidig te kunnen identificeren was er beslist om bijvoorbeeld het delen van een IP-adres te beperken tot maximaal 16 gebruikers en dit via een gedragscode die door de sector werd ondertekend. Translation by me: > To identify users, it was agreed that sharing a single IP address would be limited to a maximum of 16 users and that this limit would be part of a code of conduct which would be signed by the industry” So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful. As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you think this form of cooperation between the public and private sector as a way to expedite the deployment of IPv6? Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful.
I don't see a connection between a CoC for CGN sizing would have an impact on IPv6 deployment. A CoC that spells out that IPv6 is important and that the government expects this, and tells all the upper management of ISPs that this is the case, that might help. I think the reason Belgium is so big on IPv6 is that (and I might be wrong, but this is the impression I have from talking to people with insight) is that PPPoE is widely used, ISPs provide gateways that people use in homesm and there are a few large players. This means it's fairly easy to deploy IPv6.
As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you
Well, 16:1 makes a lot of sense, I'd say sensible is somewhere between 16:1 and 64:1. Port ranges should be used to make logging less of a problem, and that means you allocate 1024, 2048 or 4096 ports per user as a block at once. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Please unsubscribe me from this WG Thanks.
On 25 Nov 2016, at 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful.
I don't see a connection between a CoC for CGN sizing would have an impact on IPv6 deployment.
A CoC that spells out that IPv6 is important and that the government expects this, and tells all the upper management of ISPs that this is the case, that might help.
I think the reason Belgium is so big on IPv6 is that (and I might be wrong, but this is the impression I have from talking to people with insight) is that PPPoE is widely used, ISPs provide gateways that people use in homesm and there are a few large players. This means it's fairly easy to deploy IPv6.
As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you
Well, 16:1 makes a lot of sense, I'd say sensible is somewhere between 16:1 and 64:1. Port ranges should be used to make logging less of a problem, and that means you allocate 1024, 2048 or 4096 ports per user as a block at once.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
participants (4)
-
irfan -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Marco Hogewoning -
Mikael Abrahamsson