RE: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering

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