RE: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 02 January 2008 16:18 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ij-0003yw-EG; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:41 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ih-0003xI-J7 for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:39 -0500
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ig-0004tW-VS for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:39 -0500
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m02GIWxn012016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m02GIWcv029244; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:18:32 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m02GIRXP029092; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:18:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:30 -0800
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:29 -0800
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029EDD48@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <FC9DB879-0F83-47F7-9C3D-6C487BAFC330@extremenetworks.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
thread-index: AchNWn7LOnnKGN54QTu/N+2SWPk/ewAAH+KQ
References: <FC9DB879-0F83-47F7-9C3D-6C487BAFC330@extremenetworks.com>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "RJ Atkinson" <rja@extremenetworks.com>, <ram@iab.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2008 16:18:30.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CD171B0:01C84D5B]
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

Sounds like a use-case for Teredo [RFC4380]?

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:14 AM
> To: ram@iab.org
> Subject: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
> 
> 
> (NB: This doesn't directly relate to IRTF RRG work, but it does
> relate to routing & addressing futures, so the IAB RAM list
> seems to be the right venue for this narrow observation and
> any followup discussion that might occur.)
> 
> I recently became aware of a large residential broadband operator
> in North America that provides no global-scope IP addresses to
> its customers.  By default there are no global-scope IP addresses
> -- and none are available as an option at any price to residential
> broadband subscribers to this particular service.
> 
> Instead, this operator deploys a combination/integrated home
> gateway at each customer site.  This gateway is managed exclusively
> by the network operator.  The only customer option (at time
> of installation) is whether wireless is enabled or not.  This
> gateway performs NAT/NAPT, has an 802.11 wireless service on the
> customer side with WEP and WPA (but NOT 802.11i or WPA2), and
> uses DHCP to distribute private (RFC-1918; specifically 192.168.x/24)
> IP addresses to whatever devices the customer has on offer.
> This CPE box also includes a 4-port Ethernet hub on the inside
> of the NAT/NAPT to connect to any wired networks in the house.
> Further, there are sundry additional packet/port filters inside
> this CPE box.
> 
> The net result is that this particular operator isn't really
> providing a "dialtone IP" service.  Instead, it is more nearly
> a "only web and email access" service.  For example, there are
> widespread reports that online gaming (e.g. using XBOX) does
> not work with this service.  There are also complaints online
> about how various uncommonly used transport-layer ports seem
> to be blocked.  The most commonly used ports (DNS, HTTP, HTTPS,
> IMAP4, SMTP, POP3) appear to work through this CPE box.  Of
> course, VoIP is also blocked -- though this operator does offer
> POTS lines via a separate adapter located at the customer premise.
> 
> It is unclear to me whether/how this CPE integrated/combination
> home gateway is addressed.  One could imagine the CPE box being
> inside 10.0/8 and individual customers being inside 192.168.x/24
> with NAT/NAPT in the CPE box and then again at some larger gateway
> between the local region of this service and the public again.
> I don't know for certain whether the CPE box is addressed by
> IP, whether it has a private IP address, or whether it has a
> global-scope IP address.
> 
> 
> NOTE WELL:
> The operator has no issues with IPv4 address availability.  This
> is simply how they chose to define their service offering.  They
> market it as "High-speed Internet".  They believe that customers
> actually prefer to have the operator provide this narrower service
> rather than a "dial-tone IP" service.
> 
> 
> TWO QUICK OBSERVATIONS:
> If this becomes a widely used deployment model, and customers accept
> this, then there are at least two implications to consider:
>    1) IPv4 Address shortages might not be as big an issue as 
> some think.
>    2) New services really are only deployable over HTTP/HTTPS.
>       Nearly any other new protocol, NAT/NAPT-friendly or not,
>       would likely not be usable by these end users.
> 
> 
> I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected.  I am sure
> that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own.
> 
> 
> 
> Ran
> rja@extremenetworks.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAM mailing list
> RAM@iab.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
> 

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram