IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Feb 11 00:57:21 CST 2011


On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:46 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>> There is no one universal "global routing table". They probably appear in someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
> 
> Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of the resource.  Go to any registry and ask for address space for your private networking that you do not intend to announce to the internet.  They will laugh at you, and point you to RFC1918. (and likely flag you as someone to whom address space should never be assigned.)  The only reason legacy holders get away with such crap is because there's no clear contract governing their assignment.
> 
Um...

From the ARIN NRPM:

4.3.5. Non-connected Networks

End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity.
Notice how it specifically allows a non-connected network to request and use globally unique addresses?

If you think that should be changed, then, you need to get on PPML and submit a policy proposal to change that.

For now, no, they will not laugh at you (at least not at ARIN), they will actually issue the numbers if you approach
them with an appropriate justification.

>> How many days do you think a single /8 lasts at current assignment rates?
> 
> APNIC says the last 2 /8's they were assigned (triggering the dead-man clause) would last ~6mo.  With responsible use, 22 /8's would last several years. (3-5 best guess.  Of course, there could be a land-rush and all of it disappear next week -- see also: responsible use)
> 
That's 1 of 5 RIRs, so, even if you consider them a straw-man model, that's 20 /8s per year. Please tell me
how a consumption rate of 20 /8s per year can take 3-5 years to consume 22 /8s

You seem to be particularly bad at math or you don't understand the RIR system. I'm not sure which.

Also, note that at the time APNIC got their last 2 /8s all of the other RIRs were 2 or more months ahead of them
in exhausting their last IANA allocations.

>> How would ARIN/ICANN go about reclaiming addresses that someone believes they are using but that you don't think are in use?
> 
> First off, someone will have to do a lot more than 5 minutes of poking router-servers to see just how sparsely used ("announced") the space really is.  That includes digging through BGP histories to see if it's ever been announced.  Then research who should be in control of the space (announced or not.)  Then send out nasty sounding letters informing whomever that X address space has not been announced to the public internet in Y years; on Z date, the space will reenter the IANA/ICANN free pool for reassignment. (cue lawyers :-))  They'd also be highly motivated to return unused space if they were being billing for it.
> 
As multiple people have pointed out to you, never announced in a visible way is not the same as not in use.
ARIN policy specifically allows use for non-connected networks. If you don't like that fact, you can attempt
to change ARIN policy. Such a change being applied retro-actively, however, is unlikely to succeed
IMHO. If you can't apply it retroactively, then, the existing networks that are using unique addresses on
their private networks will not be forced to return them.

> As the powers that be have drug their feet for over a decade already, I really doubt they'll even take 5 minutes to look at *a single* route server.
> 
This isn't foot-dragging. This is recognizing the art of the possible and understanding the reality of the
situation. I realize you are apparently loathe to do so.

> As for this "not fixing the problem", IPv4 is going to be a problem for MANY years to come.  IPv6 deployment is glacially slow.  IPv4 being "out of space" is getting news attention now, but will fade from the spotlight shortly.  The

IPv4 will be a problem for a few years. This will not improve that fact.

IPv6 deployment has been glacially slow, but, is accelerating rapidly, especially since 1/31.

> people who have space will continue to have it and generally not notice the lack of availablity.  The likes of

People who have space may not notice a need for space on their networks, but, they will absolutely notice a
need for access to or from up and coming IPv6-only networks where users have limited, degraded, or no
connectivity to IPv4.

> Facebook, etc., have jumped on IPv6 because they have a reason to... they have volumes of IPv6 connected eyeballs.  Yet the likes of Amazon and Akamai, aren't supporting IPv6 (and have no published plans to.)  Almost all of 

http://www.akamai.com/ipv6

Looks like a public announcement on IPv6 from Akamai to me.

I am not sure about Amazon. I couldn't find anything in a quick google search.

Certainly it would be good if they had a plan and better if they announced it.

> the major ISPs in the country still don't fully support IPv6 -- the few that do embrace v6 make it a pain in the ass to get it setup.  I don't support IPv6 (since elink killed their experiment); I can get everywhere I care to go, and everyone who cares to get to me does.  I, like many/most others, will fix that problem when it *is* a problem.
> 
Actually, the major ISPs do support IPv6 on some level.

There are several providers, Hurricane Electric included, where you can get IPv6 easily set up and it is
relatively painless, actually. There are others that are still debugging their business processes around
IPv6. I suspect this will rapidly improve in the coming months.

> (For the record... TWTC: not supported, Speakeasy: not supported, VZB: not recommended for an existing connection (if you want it to stay working))
> 
For the record:

TWTC: Supported, TWC: Working on it.
VZB: Actually, I know a few people that have working dual-stack connections with VZB and did not have any major issues with the conversion from IPv4 to dual stack.

This is by no means any sort of exhaustive list of major providers or even a top 3. It's a rather odd choice of 3 as near as I can tell.

A somewhat out of date, but, more detailed perspective is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment

There are a number of providers offering Native IPv6 not listed there.

Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list