IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Tue, 22 March 2022 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 E9C5E3A0C87 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=space.net
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 eIUdBV4yQmBD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper1-relay.space.net (gatekeeper1-relay.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:3:85::38]) (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 745513A0915 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=space.net; i=@space.net; q=dns/txt; s=esa; t=1647937864; x=1679473864; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=4+g08l54BxNlkKmXY8CRyto8mBbNqXMsbSDgWG605PA=; b=L5kU3Kc9jTzwMIQYPfOEZLXHaSNC1MFTT5TO0OSJLPixfLHz5MVybaTt 7RWGECidcWOj7OTtGKxhp9tQhNRwNcYC0ytF++Xu0svt+okwWfIj2hL4l UtU+BTx/koiMicycuH+D1v1a1e08E8sPUFM/ZgvPVc0kpn13ZFsxkjGpQ xdyidfphH2cBc1v+RnSh0696Q1YIu5x2wMRYzFy/JMwxR28trFpEYh8wN xpsMAZI83gPa0HsAy2un0XRaXgeptEGVomeBNQZAycjCTyNhlvJ2wepMa k5/592OtP2ItS5xmqsRqW0DsuYd1XEZrW8gQHO6sAFUqQr/SpFtkUJkiL Q==;
X-SpaceNet-SBRS: None
Received: from mobil.space.net ([195.30.115.67]) by gatekeeper1-relay.space.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Mar 2022 09:30:57 +0100
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A984202C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:30:56 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5717B407EB; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:30:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 50927116088; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:30:56 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:30:56 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YjmJQMNgnJoSInUw@Space.Net>
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com> <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/et2N5oDV1dNmlAk5KIp95YrtZqc>
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 08:31:10 -0000

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...

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...?"

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email