4 ms·

"market based allocation" - this means further deaggregation of the existing prefixes. Which translates into eventual serious capital expenditures for the carr

by ay 16y ago

"market based allocation" - this means further deaggregation of the existing prefixes. Which translates into eventual serious capital expenditures for the carriers to hold the large tables. Worldwide. In addition to the money required to pay for carrier grade translators. Though my employer produces them (amongst other stuff) - I do not think that architecturally they are a good thing. All this money will need to come from somewhere. As the profit from a "prefix sold" goes into one pocket, but the expenditures are spread around the world, it means this profit would not come from IP addresses. It will come from the subscribers' monthly payments and quotas. Translating: bye bye unmetered access on the cheap. Not so long ago in .be the ISPs were charging after you go over 10Gb on the DSL line. About squeezing out the /8s from the current owner: that would help but not for long. It's like getting the additional credit line from the bank on the credit card. For some info on the exhaustion and the models used you can take a look here: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ Of course, NATs are "convenient", so I would not necessarily exclude that some will decide to go with the scenario you describe - cascaded NATs.

tptacek 16y ago
Help me understand how RIB explosion is a major cost factor in IPv4, where there is a fundamental engineering incentive to dynamically allocate, but isn't in IPv6, which has as part of its value proposition the notion of everyone keeping a persistant block of addresses?
- ay 16y ago
  everyone is not going to keep the persistent block of addresses. everyone with an AS# and BGP might - same as now for IPv4. everyone who is single-homed to the same ISP - just might as well, since they will be using provider-assigned space that will be aggregated by their ISP. I suspect that you interpret the last item as an advertisement that every Joe and his dog will get a PI prefix - I think they won't. PA vs. PI space is an interesting topic, there is currently a very lively discussion going on in IETF on this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg05398.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg05398.... I will let you take a look at it, and read the data directly from real-world operators.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Help me understand how making it technically simpler for people to have persistant portable allocations is going to decrease RIB sizes. It's been over a decade since I had to write a BGP regex, but to my uneducated eyes, it looks like the exact opposite is true. It really feels to me like nobody wants to acknowledge that IP addresses are just the license plate numbers that ISPs issue; that, or they hope that IPv6 is going to magically change that.
    - ay 16y ago
      I have reread my message above and do not see me stating the assertion you are arguing against. Mind to clarify your logic ?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        What I see you saying is "yeah, well, that's not going to be a problem because very few people are going to bother to ask for portable addresses". But clearly more people are going to ask in a world where it's numerically possible for them to have one than in a world where it isn't.
        ay 16y ago
        It depends on the economic (dis)incentives around such an action, and they will be the main determining factor, as opposed to technicalities. Whether it will be much easier with IPv6 than with IPv4 - the time will show. Much like with the a migration itself - which is a balance of the cost of hinging on the IPv4 only (investing into NATs and support), or investing into IPv6 infra as well as a strategic way forward. I have no material interest in either (gee, FWIW the NAT mess could provide much more billable work:), but having helped non-single digit hundred of people people un-shoot themselves with NATs in the past 10 years, I think IPv6 is cleaner architecturally in the long run - because it is simpler. But I think we both agree it's a matter of economics. What is simpler and cheaper to use. And the fact that the p2p substrate in the heavily-NATted environment is a dead-on competitive advantage - so no-one is going to play the charity and release their code for the benefit of the community. But maybe the time will show differently.

by ay 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Help me understand how RIB explosion is a major cost factor in IPv4, where there is a fundamental engineering incentive to dynamically allocate, but isn't in IPv6, which has as part of its value proposition the notion of everyone keeping a persistant block of addresses?

ay 16y ago
everyone is not going to keep the persistent block of addresses. everyone with an AS# and BGP might - same as now for IPv4. everyone who is single-homed to the same ISP - just might as well, since they will be using provider-assigned space that will be aggregated by their ISP. I suspect that you interpret the last item as an advertisement that every Joe and his dog will get a PI prefix - I think they won't. PA vs. PI space is an interesting topic, there is currently a very lively discussion going on in IETF on this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg05398.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg05398.... I will let you take a look at it, and read the data directly from real-world operators.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Help me understand how making it technically simpler for people to have persistant portable allocations is going to decrease RIB sizes. It's been over a decade since I had to write a BGP regex, but to my uneducated eyes, it looks like the exact opposite is true. It really feels to me like nobody wants to acknowledge that IP addresses are just the license plate numbers that ISPs issue; that, or they hope that IPv6 is going to magically change that.
  - ay 16y ago
    I have reread my message above and do not see me stating the assertion you are arguing against. Mind to clarify your logic ?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      What I see you saying is "yeah, well, that's not going to be a problem because very few people are going to bother to ask for portable addresses". But clearly more people are going to ask in a world where it's numerically possible for them to have one than in a world where it isn't.
      - ay 16y ago
        It depends on the economic (dis)incentives around such an action, and they will be the main determining factor, as opposed to technicalities. Whether it will be much easier with IPv6 than with IPv4 - the time will show. Much like with the a migration itself - which is a balance of the cost of hinging on the IPv4 only (investing into NATs and support), or investing into IPv6 infra as well as a strategic way forward. I have no material interest in either (gee, FWIW the NAT mess could provide much more billable work:), but having helped non-single digit hundred of people people un-shoot themselves with NATs in the past 10 years, I think IPv6 is cleaner architecturally in the long run - because it is simpler. But I think we both agree it's a matter of economics. What is simpler and cheaper to use. And the fact that the p2p substrate in the heavily-NATted environment is a dead-on competitive advantage - so no-one is going to play the charity and release their code for the benefit of the community. But maybe the time will show differently.