Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting

Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEE921F86DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WjiZJ3p+TYFy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868E021F870A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so1496830ghb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 04:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=h3oVFgpV2f5s7+/yqssmMXel74ks+Mge2V8UKU+xepk=; b=rTLD/JWHU4lnWDWZjUe6BPP/BPMX6YkTPsf/fZG1uOX+qzOs6PSZMWv+QXBuisoMyE QYWjRrmOz3ewkVE6ZTYzqpSq1QMc2RbL92mZkbwi9l5K5nvVACGNgxLpkhsmf/qZQdMk C5b3GhnJrWBaZu810+b3rI3bHJSkF2x4Kf8rVoDV3cmxVaZekmkzcxGCVfeqfG02Bfwt 9ikS48s6D8TECrjAxb/3ibj9XdXoKFTbhtnJVdrQt19psoPI05GUrww8j2/w438HCFWZ J2TRfR5+3mOMKBK8Nbiy6eU4th/fAT40H+p0hJeOc4+9SRWg07c01frEPICB82JWCzKt lnww==
Received: by 10.236.9.40 with SMTP id 28mr12764217yhs.128.1344340106099; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 04:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.133] (r186-48-255-169.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy. [186.48.255.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l10sm357293ang.12.2012.08.07.04.48.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Aug 2012 04:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5020CFB9.7090402@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 08:48:19 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9C549EE0-2584-4AE1-A35A-FA69D85EF909@gmail.com>
References: <20120807074601.23F871A125@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <5020CFB9.7090402@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:48:27 -0000

Brian,

	Yes, that is true, renumbering is a fact and we may be doing it eventually but hopefully not frequently.

	Needing to renumbering every time that a large enterprise changes internet provider (frequently, every 2 or 3 years perhaps) it is simply not practical today and possibly it will never be.

Regards,
as

On 7 Aug 2012, at 05:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> As far as the mass market goes, multiple prefixes and renumbering are a fact of life.
> See the MIF and HOMENET WGs for more.
> 
> As far as enterprise networks go, renumbering is rather undesirable but sometimes
> inevitable, see 6RENUM.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 07/08/2012 08:46, Martin Rex wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
>>> On 06/08/2012 23:02, Martin Rex wrote:
>>>> Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>>>> Randy Bush wrote:
>>>>>> whatever the number of address bits, if it is fixed, we always run out.
>>>>>> memory addressing has been a cliff many times.  ip addressing.  ...
>>>>> Yup.  To quote Fred Brooks on memory address space: "Every successful
>>>>> computer architecture eventually runs out of address space" -- and I heard
>>>>> him say that in 1973.
>>>> I'm wondering what resource shortage would have happened if IPv6
>>>> had been massively adopted 10 years earlier, and whether we would have
>>>> seen the internet backbone routers suffer severely from the size
>>>> of the routing tables, if every single home customer (DSL subscriber)
>>>> would have required a provider-independent IPv6 network prefix rather
>>>> than a single, provider-dependent IPv4 IP Address.
>>> That was never a likely scenario (and still isn't). PA prefixes are still
>>> the norm for mass-market IP, regardless of version number.
>> 
>> 
>> IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
>> Avoiding the renumbering implies provider independent
>> network prefix.
>> 
>> With IPv4, you would have typically keept your IPv4 network address
>> (the old class A, B & C from early 199x) even when changing network
>> providers.
>> 
>> 
>> To me, IPv6 PA prefixes look like a pretty useless feature
>> (from the customer perspective).  Either you want an provider-independent
>> prefix to avoid the renumbering when changing providers,
>> or you want some level of privacy protection and therefore
>> a fully dynamic temporary DHCP-assigned IPv6 address
>> (same network prefix for 10000+ customers of the ISP)
>> and for use with NAT (again to avoid the renumbering).
>> 
>> IPv6 renumbering creates huge complexity without value (for the customer).
>> 
>> -Martin
>>