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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 22/03/2013 16:26, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> 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 and withdrawn due to aircraft mobility and brought the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.

This is good to know.  May I mention some commercial deployments of
Wi-Fi in vehicles.

Currently 'Wi-Fi is already in use aboard 1600 planes that fly over the
United States' according to a recent respectable paper.  GoGo and OnAir
as operators, and Boeing and Airbus as manufacturers.

I have tried recently one Wi-Fi on-board of flight (gogo with a delta
flight in US). It was NAT for the passengers and no IPv6.

I have also tried recently Wi-Fi on board of the IETF shuttle bus in
Orlando, and Wi-Fi on board of the Thalys train for Brussels.  Both were
NAT for passengers, and no IPv6.

For the Thalys train I could notice handover of the train between 3G and
WiFi in railway station, by checking the end-to-end RTT.

When NAT IPv4 is used on-board of these vehicles, there is probably no
routing churn (the onboard addresses are not propagated to the
infrastructure), and probably little need for Mobile IP.

The on-board WiFi networks of vehicles would be candidates for using ULA
addressing when migrating to IPv6.

Alex

>> 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
>
>