"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

Jared Mauch jared at puck.nether.net
Thu Feb 10 21:11:32 CST 2011


On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> 
>> If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
>> without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
>> best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
>> 
> 
> When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that
> 
> 1) We won't route this, so use it
> 
> 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed.
> 
> All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs).


Jack,

I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list went to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this month.  Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..)

I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some of us think.  The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this with their cellular/data networks.  Doing this on some of the consumer networks will likely not be "that much" pain.  Obviously the pain will vary per subscriber/home.

I think despite everyones dislike, distaste and wish that the IPv6 situation didn't smell quite as bad as it does, we're certainly stuck with it.  I don't see anyone deploying a new solution anytime soon, and it having broad market acceptance/coding.

Many of us wish that IPv6 didn't have a lot of "unecessary/ugly" stuff.  I wish that the network situation wasn't as ugly, but none of this will make it so.  We will have to continue to improve and augment the autoconf, dhcpv6, etc environment.  The existing hosts need to be fixed (eg: my laptop won't do ipv6 over pptp/vpn properly without a hack), etc..

IPv4 is "dead" in my opinion.  Not dead as in useless, but to the point where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time worrying about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed in IPv6 land.

Please make sure you list IPv6 *first* in your RFPs, and the IPv4 capabilities under the 'legacy protocols' for 2011.  If we're truly going to have the promise of the Internet, we need these market forces to drive the carriers and SME/Prosumer markets to lead the way for the grandparents to still get to their "Google, Bing" et al, and not just those of us who know there will be an IPv6 day and have our mailboxes filled with IPv6 "spam" this month.

- Jared



More information about the NANOG mailing list