Citeren ipv6-wg-request@ripe.net:
Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to ipv6-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ipv6-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Per Heldal) 2. unsubscibe jkuijer@dds.nl (jkuijer@dds.nl) 3. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Florian Weimer) 4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Randy Bush) 5. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Geoff Huston) 6. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Geoff Huston) 7. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Geoff Huston) 8. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (william(at)elan.net) 9. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Max Tulyev)
--__--__--
Message: 1 From: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc> To: "Salman Asadullah" <sasad@cisco.com> Cc: "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:21:52 +0100
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:55:16 -0800, "Salman Asadullah" <sasad@cisco.com> said:
You seem to be far away from the ground realities.
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason.
Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in progress". Make sure your preferred technology is implemented across all platforms and accompanied by solutions for traffic-engineering, filtering and other issues. Then you may have a viable alternative to present to the operators community. Don't expect anybody to adopt new technologies unless they represent some progress.
I'm not saying that shim6 is DOA. It *may become* an alternative, but it *is not*. Unless you can convince content-providers to trust their upstream to provide redundancy and thus eliminate the need for end-site multihoming you have the following realistic short-term alternatives:
* Keep ipv6 experimental and postpone operational deployment until there's a good technical solution to the multi-homing problem or a way to eliminate the DFZ and the related concerns about routing- table size.
* Adopt a PI policy for v6 similar to the current v4-policy, and hope that moore can keep up with the growth of the routing-table.
From there policies will have to evolve, along with the development of new technology. Evolution is a perpetual process, not a project with a finite deadline.
PS! am I missing something, or is IETF/IAB trying to copy the ITU in the way they produce paper-standards? Is that really such a good idea?
//per -- Per Heldal heldal@eml.cc
--__--__--
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:25:08 +0100 From: jkuijer@dds.nl To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] unsubscibe jkuijer@dds.nl
Citeren ipv6-wg-request@ripe.net:
Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to ipv6-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ipv6-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (McTim) 2. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Geoff Huston) 3. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Randy Bush) 4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Andre Oppermann)
-- __--__--
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:19:49 +0300 From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= <jorgen@hovland.cx> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
hiya,
(removed address-policy-wg from the cc:)
On 11/28/05, J=F8rgen Hovland <jorgen@hovland.cx> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com]
#2 sounds like PI to me. What have I missed?
Hello McTim, You are correct. That's why I wrote PI in the email:-).
I guess I misread the below wrong then ;-)
J=F8rgen Hovland wrote:
- 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix.
It is an attempt to suggest an alternative idea to the PI discussion. Don't get me wrong. I am for PI. This idea is perhaps a bit more hierarchical instead of the standard flat one. Just making sure we have thought of everything before we reach consensus
I am sure thiat consensus will take a very long tiime on this one! We will probably have to talk about grotopological v6 adressing (as they are doing on the ARIN ppml) and a host of other issues. I reckon we ought to wait for shim6 to do their work as well.
because this PI discussion is very important to ipv6.
v. true.
-- Cheers,
McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-- __--__--
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:15:27 +1100 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland <jorgen@hovland.cx>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
----- Original Message ----- From: "Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 4:00 PM
* Jeroen Massar:
1. Make /32 the only routable entity so we can use perfect match in the DFZ instead of longest-prefix match.
What about the organizations that have say a /19, want them to inject all their more specific /32's?
You can inject a /19 as 8192 /32s. Shouldn't make a difference if the /19 is really used.
At this stage, it's probably not too wise to embed the /32--/48--/64 in silicon, but vendors will undoubtedly do this if they can save a few bucks and current policies remain as inflexible as they are.
Hi, Perfect match is faster but far from better. What I think perhaps would be= =20 interesting to see in the future with regards to IPv6 and PI is the= following:
1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. 2. Customers of network operators can at any time change provider and take= =20 their assigned prefix with them. The new provider will announce it as a=20 more specific overriding the aggregate. If the customer decides to get=20 multiple providers, then the network operator with the /32 could also=20 announce a more specific.
In the country I live in I can change telecom provider and take my
At 03:37 AM 29/11/2005, J=F8rgen Hovland wrote: phone=20
number with me to the new provider. Why shouldn't I be able to do that=20 with internet providers? Yes, it will somehow create millions/billions of prefixes (atleasat with=20 todays routing technology/protocols). Network operators should be able to= =20 handle that hence rule #1.
Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit= =20 of deployed capability of routing.
Then what?
Geoff
-- __--__--
Message: 3 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:17 -1000 To: Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com> Cc: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>, Oliver Bartels <oliver@bartels.de>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, roger@jorgensen.no Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason.
i gather that the message that leslie daigle was given at the last nanog was not well-transmitted to the ietf. no big surprise.
you may want to look at http://nanog.org/mtg-0510/real/ipv6-bof.ram
randy
-- __--__--
Message: 4 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:13:39 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch> To: Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com> CC: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>, Oliver Bartels <oliver@bartels.de>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, roger@jorgensen.no Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Salman Asadullah wrote:
You seem to be far away from the ground realities.
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason.
Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet and to be workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there. That is every operating system in sufficient existence. That puts IPv6 even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade and replacement cycles.
Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem. Renumbering is not just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls. No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet.
So nice try but no cookie.
-- Andre
Regards, Salman
At 10:55 AM 11/25/2005 +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote: <snip> If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for those who requires this functionallity.
Thus they won't use IPv6.
Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
A technical playground for technically interested people.
a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6.
Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to understand.
Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy for them to switch providers as they see fit.
<snip>
Hmm, please let me translate: "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a
horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving, start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car gives us."
Sound like newspeak: If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the
single problem.
for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers etc, then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it use the extended header of IPv6.
That's just ONE of many possible ways...
(1) it's a master thesis writting by a student related to University of Tromsø as part of the Pasta project, www.pasta.cs.uit.no
--
------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------
End of ipv6-wg Digest
--__--__--
Message: 3 From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland <jorgen@hovland.cx>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:26:53 +0100
* Geoff Huston:
Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit of deployed capability of routing.
Then what?
You buy new routers.
What's next? Do you plan to lobby Hollywood to reduce the number of movies create per year, so that your customers have fewer of them to download, and the capacity of your pipes is not exceeded?
--__--__--
Message: 4 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:17:54 -1000 To: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc> Cc: Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com>, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason. Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in progress".
one of the key points from the nanog session was that shim6 is the *wrong* work in progress. what is needed is _site_ multi-homing, not host multi-homing.
randy
--__--__--
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:34:05 +1100 To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc> From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI Cc: Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com>, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, address-policy-wg@ripe.net
At 03:17 AM 30/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason. Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in progress".
one of the key points from the nanog session was that shim6 is the *wrong* work in progress. what is needed is _site_ multi-homing, not host multi-homing.
"wrong"? "right"?
Usual response - if you believe that there is a better way of doing this work through the issues here, then write up an approach, gather support, get peer review etc etc.
As I said at NANOG, part of the problem with distributed models where there is action at a distance is to understand and clearly identify instances of gratuitous packet header rewriting by hostile agents as compared to packet rewriting by agents who believe that they are doing this in a friendly and helpful fashion. This becomes a challenging problem,of course.
I don't think any single approach today is the one true right approach at this point, but unless we explore this space with some diligence, allow for experimentation and keep an open mind on this work then you are going to get intractably wedged between the desire for greater flexibility in the use of addresses as a form of semi-persistent endpoint identifiers and the desire for reduced flexibility in the use of addresses as forwarding tokens in order to keep the routing space confined to readily computable dimensions.
But of course _all_ this will be solved in MPLS - right? :-)
Geoff
--__--__--
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:36:11 +1100 To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland <jorgen@hovland.cx>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>
* Geoff Huston:
Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the
At 01:26 AM 30/11/2005, Florian Weimer wrote: limit
of deployed capability of routing.
Then what?
You buy new routers.
So what you are saying is that _I_ want address portability and _you_ have to buy new routers.
Well that sure works for me! How's the chequebook feeling on your side?
(I'm not convinced that you've selected the best of business models, as there does appear to be a significant inconsistency going on in your model in that cost and benefit are not related all that well.)
Geoff
--__--__--
Message: 7 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:01:56 +1100 To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch>, Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com> From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI Cc: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>, Oliver Bartels <oliver@bartels.de>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, roger@jorgensen.no
At 08:13 PM 29/11/2005, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Salman Asadullah wrote:
You seem to be far away from the ground realities.
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason.
Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet
Multi6 produced 5 WG drafts, all of which have been published as RFCs You can (and probably should) read through RFCs 3582, 4116, 4177, 4219, and 4218
SHIM6 is working on the following drafts - again I would recommend that you read though all of them:... draft-ietf-shim6-app-refer, draft-ietf-shim6-applicability, draft-ietf-shim6-arch, draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection, draft-ietf-shim6-hba, draft-ietf-shim6-proto, and draft-ietf-shim6-reach-detect.
and to be workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there. That is every operating system in sufficient existence. That puts IPv6 even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade and replacement cycles.
yep - any form of locator / identity split is such a basic shift in the architectural model used by IP that changes to the stack are required. This is the case in mobility, nomadism, ad-hoc networking and this form of multi-homing. If you want agile locators and any form of persistence in endpoint identifiers then you are not going to get that without changes to the stack. Now if you are arguing that the deployed base of IPv6 is so large that further changes are impossible in this particular technology due to the inertia of the deployed IPv6 base, then that's certainly an interesting perspective, and not one I've heard all that often so far. If you are saying that this will take time to develop and deploy, then you are probably right, and a model that can use incremental deployment using a conventional initial context followed by a capability exchange to explore if there is mutual support for this form of communication capability, then you may well be onto something interesting. Although I'd hasten to add that this is the approach being taken within the SHIM6 architecture.
Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem. Renumbering is not just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls. No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the DNS and renumbering - its not a clearly defined space, and the implications relating to the DNS are not clearly understood in communication models where feasible locator sets are dynamically exchanged rather than always loaded into third party rendezvous points, as in the DNS model.
So nice try but no cookie.
Thank you,
Geoff
--__--__--
Message: 8 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:53:49 -0800 (PST) From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net> To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>, Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com>, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Geoff Huston wrote:
At 03:17 AM 30/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason. Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in progress".
one of the key points from the nanog session was that shim6 is the *wrong* work in progress. what is needed is _site_ multi-homing, not host multi-homing.
Yes, well if it goes forward, it may well end up being used for setting up site-multihoming:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/architecture- discuss/current/msg00095.html and will be seen as friendly and right solution (on what "friendly" and "right" can mean seen below).
"wrong"? "right"?
Usual response - if you believe that there is a better way of doing this work through the issues here, then write up an approach, gather support, get peer review etc etc.
As I said at NANOG, part of the problem with distributed models where there is action at a distance is to understand and clearly identify instances of gratuitous packet header rewriting by hostile agents as compared to packet rewriting by agents who believe that they are doing this in a friendly and helpful fashion. This becomes a challenging problem,of course.
If its hostile or friendly behavior is in the eye of the beholder - but in fact it may not even be only one side or the other for the same person.
If I sit under a NAT and it prevents my application from running, I'm hostile to that behavior. But same NAT box may well be protecting my home network from intrusion and allowing me to have multiple computers connected through the same dsl/cable/wireless connection, so I'd view it as a friendly. Since most people don't notice its hostile behavior (due to kind of applications they run) and all notice its friendly behavior it will overall be seen as a friend and "right" solution.
So is there better way to do it and without NAT? Of course there is - have real firewall and have block of ips - but NAT is winning as a business case because it can do those several friendly things well for almost everyone and without dependence on network provider and those few users who are inconvenienced and their application are viewed as minor percentage and not a problem in the overall business case. So business case won but IETF end-end tcp/ip architecture broken ...
I don't think any single approach today is the one true right approach at this point, but unless we explore this space with some diligence,
Diligence is the right word. But is it really the size of the routing table that we're being most concerned (considering #of routes in ipv6 will most definitely be smaller then with ipv4 because of less fragmentation - generally one ip block per ASN) or business case of users who do not want to be dependent on IP provider and RIR to be able to multihome?
And should due diligence be applied so that proposed solution both makes sense to do for those who will use it (i.e. small businesses in case of shim6) an does not break applications when that is done?
-- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
--__--__--
Message: 9 From: Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:33:52 +0300
Hi!
1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix.
I am an operator of a network - do I get a prefix ? (we have lots of computers and need lots of IP addresses: currently the 5 PCs, 2 printers, a phone and some PDA and a server online)
I guess you need to define the criteria in some other way. Perhaps beeing registered with the national regulator
I'm looking at all of that and begin to think that all this discussion about PI vs PA (and only [large] operators can get a prefix) is just for implementing some unfair rules in ISP market.
Wise customers wants to have PI because of to be multihoming and have stable and really _provider_independent_ (i.e. not depending on upstream's faults) connection. Small operators wants to have PI because of LIR is often too expensive for them.
Large operators do NOT want PI because of they can hold a client with their address space ("if you are going to change ISP - you will have a large trouble with renumbering your network and changing domains" or even "if you do not do ... - we will immediately shut down your connection"). Large operators (can pay for LIR) do NOT want PI because of it makes the extra money barrier to be an operator (LIR cost).
See more on. Imagine there is no PI. If somebody really-really-really needs to be multihoming - he will be a LIR and do the LIR initial request (/20 PA for IPv4 instead of /24 PI he really need for years). So in this case we do not conserve one row of route table, but slightly loss in conserving space (/20 instead of /24).
Even more. Who is making the most noise about no PI? As I can see, large operators. People who have enough powerful routers to not to think about extra routes there.
P.S. And please do not compare IP connectivity with global dynamic routing (it is a really BIG achievement of the Internet!) with PSTN and global static routing where switching routes to certain number plan can take several monthes. Of course, in PSTN we can't ever think about hot backup and upstream reservation (multihoming).
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
End of ipv6-wg Digest
participants (1)
-
jkuijer＠dds.nl