Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> Tue, 03 August 2021 09:43 UTC
Return-Path: <gnu@toad.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B033A1BE1 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 02:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xHB88DF_hhMz for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 02:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop.toad.com (75-101-100-43.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [75.101.100.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE21B3A1BD7 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 02:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop.toad.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hop.toad.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id 1739hA9S005735; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 02:43:10 -0700
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
cc: Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>, int-area@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <4C839DB1-AD99-4DF0-A7C6-D6F99B4BC335@gmail.com>
References: <20210802055916.GL550425@frotz.zork.net> <4C839DB1-AD99-4DF0-A7C6-D6F99B4BC335@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> message dated "Mon, 02 Aug 2021 09:45:07 -0700."
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 02:43:10 -0700
Message-ID: <5734.1627983790@hop.toad.com>
From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/AonNpFu6Hyb2pamvo0mrHBlGLm4>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 09:43:16 -0000
> Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, > routers, firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in > order to get a single extra IP address per subnet? ... > To me this fails the cost benefit analysis. You may be right (see below). One confounding factor is that the lowest-address draft is the first of a set of upcoming drafts that propose small, easy improvements in IPv4. This set of changes, in aggregate, will be worth implementing, because they create hundreds of millions of newly usable addresses, worth billions of dollars at current prices. If the cost-vs-benefit is worth doing for ANY ONE of these changes, or for any subset of these changes, then the deployment effort may as well include the other, smaller, improvements, which will come for very close to free. I agree that the "lowest address" protocol change is only likely to produce tens of millions of newly usable addresses, creating only perhaps $250M to $500M of benefits at current prices. That alone might not be worth doing, particularly since predicting FUTURE prices of IPv4 addresses is risky. But let's look at the costs. The end-user cost of updating can be zero because it can be deferred until equipment is naturally upgraded for other reasons. Nobody would buy a new router to get this feature, but eventually almost everybody buys a new router. Or installs the latest OS release. The change is completely compatible with existing networks, since the lowest addresses are currently not known to be used for anything and have been declared obsolete in IETF standards for decades. This makes the deployment risk very low. So I expect the main cost would be for each vendor to make and test small patches to their existing IPv4 implementations, and then include those changes as part of their next release or product. Our team successfully patched both Linux and BSD over a few weeks, and interoperated them successfully. Based on that experience, I estimate implementation costs to major IPv4 vendors to be under $10M in total. By 5 to 10 years after adoption, the improvement would be everywhere, and will probably have paid off about 25-to-1. I agree that the people incurring the costs of this proposal are not the people who end up getting the benefit of the IP addresses; the benefit goes to the vendors' customers, benefiting the vendors indirectly. So the cost-benefit tradeoff might be more societal (or network-wide) than individual or corporate. My understanding is that IETF's role is as a steward of network-wide value, which is why I thought this might interest IETF. John Gilmore IPv4 Unicast Extensions
- [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions wi… Seth David Schoen
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Derek Fawcus
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Seth David Schoen
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Seth David Schoen
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… John Gilmore
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Derek Fawcus
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… John Gilmore
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Seth David Schoen
- Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extension… Brian E Carpenter