Re: [v6ops] [sunset4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-09.txt

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 BC33313239E; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 WiKb6xgsNP5S; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 D1FF9126BFD; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v7HDt50Q041230; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:01:06 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2cd2w1jb6n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:01:05 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7HE13gn019646; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:01:04 -0400
Received: from alpi134.aldc.att.com (alpi134.aldc.att.com [130.8.217.4]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7HE0v5X018928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:00:59 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com (GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.218.157]) by alpi134.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:00:38 GMT
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.30]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.157]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:00:37 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] [sunset4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-09.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTFtPhi+wo0/l+sUG0TolNU5N+WqKH5EkAgACh8xA=
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:00:37 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DC00555@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <150158713179.9574.7767168468574012763@ietfa.amsl.com> <C9B5F12337F6F841B35C404CF0554ACB8AD0B6CC@dggeml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <D5B9D8F6.811AD%lee@asgard.org> <B5B97D89-D2FF-4A6D-BE11-E1C1DC62EA16@consulintel.es> <0E0D8D4F-A487-4572-A7D2-C77635280329@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E0D8D4F-A487-4572-A7D2-C77635280329@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.216.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-08-17_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1708170231
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Feq-0LE2Tt_mcf03QxQcy9iFgAI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [sunset4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-09.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:01:28 -0000

> The question I would ask is whether on-demand IPv4 makes sense. To my
> way of thinking, it amounts to deploying a new kind of network. We are
> asking people to deploy IPv6 in their IPv4 networks, or to deploy IPv6-only
> networks. That requires some portion of the money and time they have
> available for such issues. Deploying an IPv4-on-demand network is another
> thing competing for those same resources - it doesn't create new resources
> or reduce the matters pertaining to IPv6 deployment - it creates another
> demand for the same resources. I don't see the point.
> 
> I suspect that the network actually routes IPv4 no matter what; what is being
> handed out on demand is an IPv4 address to an edge device. Hosts right now
> get IPv4 (and IPv6) addresses when they don't need them so they can use
> them when they do. They would need a different mode of operation,
> perhaps triggered by the resolver noticing that an application wants to access
> some name and the name only has an A record. In that mode of operation,
> the host only asks for (DHCP) an IPv4 address when it needs it, and routing in
> the network is to the granted address for the lifetime of the address.
> 
> Do I believe we can describe and solve that? Yes. Do I think we can do it more
> cheaply and simply than moving folks and their applications to IPv6, and
> convince operators to change their operational practices accordingly? Not
> even close. I think it is a diversion from IPv6 deployment.

I think "on-demand IPv4" would be rather easy with PPPoE. Many (telco) ISPs are still using PPPoE, and there's still a lot of equipment and routers that support it. The costliest part of PPPoE was help desk calls for people who forgot their login/password. ISP-managed CE routers (that do PPPoE) have mostly evolved to have this auto-configured by the ISP. But not retail CE routers.

In the early days of the Internet, before the need for persistent IPv4 connectivity --  by applications using keep-alives or autonomously and frequently checking in with some server -- was prevalent, many ISPs that used PPPoE supplied CE routers that timed out the PPPoE connection (usually after about 20 minutes of no WAN-bound IPv4 traffic). They also over-subscribed their IPv4 address space. The delay in establishing the PPPoE connection on-demand (when a WAN-bound IPv4 packet came from the LAN) was small; and in the context of sunsetting IPv4, such a delay would probably be quite acceptable. Chatty applications put an end to IPv4 address over-subscription and PPPoE connections that timed out.

So I think an on-demand solution already exists (complete with aging equipment, code, and operational knowledge). For those who want it.
Of course, no on-demand solution will work as long as there are still a lot of IPv4-only autonomously chatty apps.
Disclaimer: Please don't take this email as a statement that I'm recommending this, or that my employer has any such plans, or that I have emotional attachment to this idea, or that I have some sort of agenda regarding this. I'm providing this purely as technical information, in case people weren't aware of it. 
Barbara