Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 22 March 2022 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60DD3A0C9F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FVl4qhb9m1qm for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E81E3A0C94 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id z128so346977pgz.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SWJtfHuxapVH+0z4Yhx3UqRTuajUwNgWMvh85BoUjo4=; b=FM5/3qVoXwO/p/3irZrwvGRy+WVPcocovC1Cbc49Vny1SUn4KBfnq2t6jqF80UISEH iznk+EITs3AcpeTvhc/w4IvXXD+ZIoXRXCFNZLuDuzMlSnlWBf4tAZnrFTa3Q+unwAPS 68PzgVw/DEadSmjL9aPwu5y6XADQVDVmwyv1rpmcbxLef6erZnk5k0nCo8wR4Hp01OYU 5jWZotJYm9JpQ74W2N1uXSXoAYvM7z+phqRVzg3ApIa0ANQS4xJk4Sa1nkYrrCtjIjSQ X0GGr2vIrPW2ggGm4b0QpzPG0KzP+ZqvW2fZaIHIOszMIld4G6IBPmsFhU+JeVvnFIGj zOJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SWJtfHuxapVH+0z4Yhx3UqRTuajUwNgWMvh85BoUjo4=; b=USDIY2sFF8XBGJCjTQQ56iTShNxpooH04Frz3n5lLHYoh9EQEsoFpjrdWJC5HE4xr6 7hDzgZ/5wha4ITa4D8/vKqaQ9fqcSmzMkvH1QujP4kBVM4U/nb4qDyKkoJ13PeAovcpv X3pApxnUhcflZ1d+TjW+wa5etIUwAHoz+nQPn0XUUVpxp62uNJJPOfeOVmNNvunnoPao wghOJPkAS+T6/YFsnbrqiOanjDyQKvs1nyP9pff4IaekDDH4g1RmdUXDSdGxn8zz34mh xSXV+gG7WhMHk1LS2b8nOVt3Xns2/vrMA85Yc9TLA8y1jR/K/OgqnzmcFeIlx+KUwvAZ KtLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531OXibTnJ0+B2bmcSfRt6moJZRU5o2gfgp9UwLCrAbcQ7UjhgvK i/LcSnlJ6iwDY9uPCsNInymK/RA7fomecg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyH4IsGY7oW2A90E8X25r9Rgigy/pP1VyoIDid9mhnlZS3MrRLH6XT1oyt/O++tsN/nEmaBow==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:889:b0:4e0:dcc3:5e06 with SMTP id q9-20020a056a00088900b004e0dcc35e06mr30676184pfj.29.1647978892297; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k11-20020a056a00168b00b004f7e1555538sm25106545pfc.190.2022.03.22.12.54.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com> <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com> <YjmJQMNgnJoSInUw@Space.Net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fd17a91f-68dc-92b5-0544-51aefa1b7f08@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:54:47 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YjmJQMNgnJoSInUw@Space.Net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/38VA0xnPUx7GLZOos0jhO962eXg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 19:54:56 -0000

Hi Gert,

I see that the discussion has been going on while I was sleeping, but I want to clarify below...
On 22-Mar-22 21:30, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:42:12AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I agree with Jordi that multihoming is a genuine impediment. What isn't generally realised is that it's a problem of scale when considering at least 10,000,000 enterprises, much more than it's a problem of IPv6 itself.
> 
> What is "an enterprise"?
> 
> My stance on this is that for "largely unmanaged SoHo networks" - which
> could be called "small enterprise" - dual-enduser-ISP with dual-/48 or
> NPT66 gets the job done in an easy and scalable way (HNCP would have
> been great, but IETF politics killed it).
> 
> "Enterprise that truly need their own independent fully managed network
> with multiple ISP uplinks and fully routed independent address space"
> are probably way less than 10 million...

I came up with 10 million quite some years ago as a reasonable estimate
of the number of medium to large businesses in the world, all of which
might depend on *reliable* Internet access to survive (and WfH during
COVID has made this even more important recently). So all of them
should have two independent paths to the Internet to assure reliability.
That means two different ISPs (or less good, two completely independent
paths to the same ISP).

So, if PI addressing is the answer, that really does take us to
10M /48s to be routed.

If PA is the answer, that's why I worked on SHIM6 (may it rest in
peace). Which is why I worked on RFC 8028. If that's not the
answer, we're back to NPTv6. Possibly even to ULA+NPTv6.

> Half of them do not want Internet access anyway, just access to their
> ALGs that will do the filtering and TLS inspection and everything, and
> then out to the Internet as a new TCP session (= could be done with
> DMZ islands of upstream-provider-allocated space just fine).
> 
> 
> We need to work on our marketing regarding multihoming.  "What is it that
> you get, what is the cost, which of the variants do you want, and why...?"

Yes.
    Brian