Re: [v6ops] draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Merike,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Merike Kaeo [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 2:43 AM
> To: joel jaeggli
> Cc: Templin, Fred L; Brian E Carpenter; Alexandru Petrescu; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis
> 
> 
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:10 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> > On 3/21/13 3:46 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> joel jaeggli
> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:12 PM
> >>> To: Brian E Carpenter; Alexandru Petrescu
> >>> Cc: [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis
> >>>
> >>> On 3/21/13 7:10 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>>> On 21/03/2013 13:55, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> A PI GUA for 2-3 Enterprises may work connected mostly all the time
> at
> >>>>> the same 2-3 places.  But I think 1 billion PI GUAs moving around
> the
> >>>>> Internet at the speed of 1 new connection/minute may not work - it
> >>>>> involves 'route churning', i.e. too many routing protocol messages
> per
> >>>>> second and too large routing table entries.  Isnt't there a risk
> like
> >>> that?
> >>>> Well, it was three or four orders of magnitude smaller, but there
> were a
> >>> lot
> >>>> of complaints about the churn produced by Connexion by Boeing, which
> was
> >>>> effectively a few hundred IPv4 PI prefixes moving around at almost
> Mach
> >>> 1.
> >>> iirc there were complaints that it was a relatively bad idea. there
> were
> >>> no complaints as far as I know due to impact of the rate of prefix
> churn
> >>> which was way lower (by orders of magnitude) than the worst offendors
> >>> out there at the time. The prefix advertisement and withdrawal was in
> >>> fact done by the groundstatations not the aircraft.
> >>>
> >>> There were never hundreds of of transcontinental commercial aircraft
> >>> engaged in  roaming on the service (there were around 200 planes total
> >>> with the equipment). There are many more aircraft today operating with
> >>> satellite or terrestrial internet connectivity and without such
> behavior.
> >> This all happened before my time at Boeing, but my understanding
> >> is that someone noticed prefixes being announced and withdrawn
> >> due to aircraft mobility and brought the situation to light.
> > Ben Abarbanel from boeing presented it at nanog 31 yeah.
> >
> > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog31/presentations/abarbanel.pdf
> >
> > and about a year later at the ietf 62 technical plenary.
> >
> > some papers were published,  etc.
> >
> > http://quark.net/docs/Global_IP_Network_Mobility_using_BGP.pdf
> 
> Connexion By Boeing peaked my interest since I worked for them and back in
> 2005/6 developed their
> IPv6 strategy plus configured the testbed ground stations to be dual-
> stacked (I had a /48 from Boeing's
> /32 PI routed by NTT....that caused quite the debates internal to NTT
> since at that time ISPs were still debating
> merits of doing so).    It was fun trying get the ISPs to tell me the real
> deal... "no, I don't want a tunnel I want a
> native eBGP connection and please route my /48".  How times change.
> 
> I can definitively state that at that time with v6 there was going to be
> NO ULA usage although yes, there was
> routing churn that was disliked by ISPs but noone was actively saying it
> was causing *great harm*.  It was just
> very unsavory - hence the talks at NANOG and APRICOT and RIPE to explain
> and get more feedback. [and the folks
> building the routing had talked to some global ISPs before finally
> deciding on going that route]
> 
> Of course using v6 routing at that time if we had gone live *could* have
> shown interesting global routing behavior :)
> 
> It's unfortunate Connexion By Boeing went under....we were in process of
> moving to production test with v6
> at the time (early 2006).    Although as Fred has stated, the system is
> still operational but for a very limited set of folks.
> Stuck in v4 AFAIK.

My understanding was that the service was picked up by
Panasonic eXConnect.
 
> As far as mobility scenarios - due to the routing churn issues in v4 I was
> following NEMO and other mobility scenarios
> to see how they might be utilized with v6.  Not sure where that went as I
> stopped following it.

We have taken care of the routing churn issue with SEAL/VET/IRON:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-seal/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-vet/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-ironbis/

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

> Whether you use ULA or GUA for mobility has no difference.  The issue
> comes in whether you have an entirely closed system
> (air traffic control and some other global mobile entities do) or whether
> you need to communicate to outside world.  The latter
> gets more interesting with ULAs.
> 
> - merike