Re: [v6ops] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Google Alert - IPv6

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

Geoff Huston's article on

Metadata Retention and the Internet

https://telsoc.org/ajtde/2015-04-v3-n1/a4

might be of interest.

"The Metadata Retention measures being considered in Australia make some
sweeping assumptions about the semantics of IP addresses and their
association with individual subscribers to the Internet. But are these
assumptions warranted?"


On 30 Oct. 2017 3:50 am, "Dave O'Reilly" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ….and there it is. Sorry, that’s what I get for reading through the thread
> in order from earliest to most recent posts!
>
> Apologies!
>
> daveor
>
> > On 28 Oct 2017, at 06:19, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 28, 2017, at 7:15 AM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >>>> The bitter truth is that we can make IPv4 'scale' forever. ;-(
> >>>
> >>> Actually, from what I have been told, we can't. We can make it work
> for a number of sources per translated address (Xing Li gave a talk on his
> experiments in that regard a few years back, although I would have to do
> some research to find it). As I recall, he started getting user complaints
> when he had 100-or-so active sessions on each external address. That's far
> from "forever".
> >>
> >> Complaints about what?
> >
> > What I'm thinking about specifically is slide 6 of https://www.ietf.org/
> proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-v6ops-3.pdf, and some of the other slides
> around it. I got the number wrong: he saw issues when he had more than 512
> addressed machines sharing a single address using NAT address. I believe
> that the context was splitting the port number so that any given address
> had a certain number of ports that could be tracked to it rather than
> fussing with logging.
> >
> >> You might be assuming the IPv4 Internet isn't changing to accommodate
> address sharing. And there are many ways of building NAT.
> >> The mechanisms I described earlier do work. It's on my todo list to get
> hold a sufficiently large traffic sample to run the numbers of how what
> sharing ratio you could achieve. It is orders of magnitude more than 1:100
> (if you intended s/sessions/users).
> >>
> >> Each session to 8.8.8.8:53 would burn a port.
> >> But a single port could be reused for millions of connections as long
> as DA+DP was different.
> >> (And you could of course be nice to things like SIP and give those
> endpoint-independent behaviour).
> >>
> >> That said the path, of extending A+P to the end host is also open to
> us. Similarly to what Brian C proposed at IETF 29.
> >> No state in network. Each host gets a single port. I.e. we have
> expanded the address space to 48 bits.
> >> Requires new transport protocol on top of IP+UDP of course. With it's
> own name space. But that's pretty much happening over in transport now
> anyway, right?
> >>
> >> Ole
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>