- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- richardn(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz wrote:---------------------- From: Richard Nelson <richardn(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz> While not wanting to spoil a good discussion with facts, there is a presentation on Comcast's plans for IPv6 from a recent NANOG here: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/durand.html The summary is 20 million customers * 2.5 set-tops/customer * 2 IPs/box = 100million IPs. The network design requires unique IPs. The ran out of 10net in 2005 and have got a large part of 73net from ARIN. Their long term solution (new services = more IPs/customer) is IPv6. ----------------------------------------------------------- This was discussed earlier in the recent flurry of email on the subject. Also, this is why I was asking about VPRNs. However, I missed the part on why STBs need unique IPs or why they need 2 per box. scott

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- aj(a)sneep.net wrote: From: Alastair Johnson <aj(a)sneep.net> Scott Weeks wrote: : Finally, with VPRNs addresses could be reused. Just put : the customers in different VPRNs and duplicate the address : scheme. It's 'divide and conquer' methodology. I'm a : noobie to VPRNs, so flame me if this isn't feasible. I have : doused my flameproof underpants with beer, so I'm protected... :-) :: Oh yes. This is a valid methodology. Also, you don't :: really need every subscriber to be uniquely addressed across :: your entire network - to the closest PoP site or Super-PoP site :: is sufficient, depending on your topology. :: :: Of course, from your Ethernet switch/DSLAM/FTTx node/whatever, :: you know where and who the subscriber is, so you're not reliant :: on IP addressing to authorize content access, either.... Thanks for the answer. So, it seems that all customer's STBs could be put in as many VPRNs as necessary to divide them into groups such that RFC1918 space is never exhausted and each customer could get one (or as many as they request) IP address that's publically routable for their internet connectivity. Thus, if the Very Giant ISPs designed their network in this manner, IPv4 would take them as far as they need. Yes? scott

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- gerard(a)face.co.nz wrote: From: Gerard Creamer <gerard(a)face.co.nz> On 30/11/2006 7:41 a.m., Scott Weeks wrote: > Thanks for the answer. So, it seems that all customer's STBs could be put in as many VPRNs as necessary to divide them into groups such that RFC1918 space is never exhausted and each customer could get one (or as many as they request) IP address that's publically routable for their internet connectivity. Excuse my ignorance, but I'm having trouble finding useful information on what a VPRN (Virtual Private Remote Network) is - I could guess, based on my understanding of VPNs and NAT (as it appears to be used as a NAT replacement in context??), but that might be dangerous - any pointers to useful resources would be appreciated. ---------------------------------------------- My apologies, it stands for Virtual Private Routed Network. It's also known by many other names: RFC2547bis, IP Based Virtual Private Network; BGP/MPLS VPNs, Layer 3 VPNs, etc. Here's a link that looks good, though I haven't read it yet: www.spirentcom.com/documents/760.pdf scott

1 0

VPRN
by Gerard Creamer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

On 30/11/2006 7:41 a.m., Scott Weeks wrote: > Thanks for the answer. So, it seems that all customer's STBs could be > put in as many VPRNs as necessary to divide them into groups such that > RFC1918 space is never exhausted and each customer could get one (or > as many as they request) IP address that's publically routable for > their internet connectivity. Excuse my ignorance again, but I'm having trouble finding useful information on what a VPRN (Virtual Private Remote Network) is - I could guess, based on my understanding of VPNs and NAT (as it appears to be used as a NAT replacement in context??), but that might be dangerous - any pointers to useful resources would be appreciated. Thanks, Gerard

1 0

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by chris＠chrishellberg.com 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

My mail app doesn't do quoting sorry :( Peter, Agree, it's not black and white and you raise many pertinent questions. But one of the governing factors should be that a shortage of addresses[1] shouldn't restrict my network design. Not saying that you need to be wasteful. Just that NAT or some proxy equivalent shouldn't be the the solution to the address squeeze[1]. /Chris [1] maybe there is an address shortage, maybe there isn't..not terribly important for this point. ----- Original Message ---- From: Peter Youngquest <peter(a)mynetworks.co.nz> To: NZNOG <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:50:35 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) As much as I find this topic boring :-) I doubt the answer is as black and white as some would like. Exposing the evolving subscriber premise to the "world" as such may reduce some problems but obviously increases others. I think it is fair to say alot of this is a balancing game. If you expose the subscriber premise to the service core (CSCF sort of area) you increase loading at the service core. This is not a good thing considering the stability of these pieces of the network at this stage. No vendor rants to that statement pls. IMS/SIP gateways are being developed that reduce Service Core loading but still how much of the home is exposed and how much isn't. Also there are a number of initiatives working currently to further define the home, how the CPE will interact with upstream - each other, QoS on the home segment etc etc If the subscriber premise is exposed to network and as Dave pointed out earlier there are a number of less than trivial considerations. Address management, device management, Security,introducing new devices to the home (another Dick Smith VoIP phone), point of demarcation etc etc. Also is there a need to expose all the devices globally. STBs would only need visibility to the service providers, VoIP phones to the SBC/SBG, fridge to the mail server :-D Also there are the various styles of network connectivity: - single pipe, MUX UNI that will have impact on the addressing schemes. To state that having "20million subs and requiring v6 for management" as a poster child for v6 is not a good look. There are other ways of approaching this - distribution and hierarchy to me sounds feasible. Last time I looked the sky is above us. What is happening is we are moving into an interesting time where the evolution of the subscriber premise will very much determine how the networks will look. Rgds Peter

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by chris＠chrishellberg.com 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

I quite like the idea of being able to give every device behind a CPE a globally routable address. If there is a way to avoid NAT in the first place (also 1918 if that's how you're forced to do CPE management), v6 seems like an obvious alternative. Unless I'm mistaken that the RIR would happily allocate enough addresses for a /29 per household? The content is what drives the business decisions, so if the problem of accessing V4 content were magic-ed away, I'm not seeing why the bashing on V6. Should I come to more nznogs for the answer? /Chris ----- Original Message ---- From: Alastair Johnson <aj(a)sneep.net> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:50:24 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) Philip D'Ath wrote: > I don't know how more obvious it can be made. > > It's solving the looming problem of the IPv4 address pool being > exhausted in the next 3 to 6 years. > > Is not complete lack of Internet connectivity for new customers not a > good enough reason? I think the subject line says it all, on that particular topic. V6 seems to largely be a problem looking for a solution at this point in time. Need to support 25 million CPE devices? There are ways to do that, and many vendors are falling over themselves to help you. STBs? No problem. Triple/quad/quinta-plays? Got it covered. While I don't doubt that IPv6 will eventually become the widespread protocol, do you REALLY see that happening before 2020-ish? At which point the carriers will be able to make a premium selling v4 service, because by gosh there will be a lot of legacy networks out there needing it. But that's a completely separate topic. aj. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Posting and quoting
by Ian Batterbee 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hi everyone, It would be greatly appreciated if everyone posting would make the effort to remove any unnecessary quoted text from their reply before hitting send, as it is quite hard to spot the bits that are new when reading the list in digest form, with the same paragraphs repeating again and again at the end of postings. I realise some people are already doing this. Feel free to flame me for making a such a request, but address such flames to /dev/null Thanks

1 0

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- andrew(a)etc.gen.nz wrote: : There are some DSL providers in some Asian countries : who are very interested in IPv6 because they've almost : exhausted 10/8 and weren't able to receive a public /8.[1] I can't imagine any Asian country's ISP that has used 16777216 IPs. Even so, they could still have 1114112 more IPs by using 192.168/16 and 172.16/12. Do you have a pointer to which provider this is? scott --- andrew(a)etc.gen.nz wrote: From: Andrew Ruthven <andrew(a)etc.gen.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:17:18 +1300 On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:12 +1300, Robert Gray wrote: > Philip D'Ath wrote: > > > I think the board of directors will flip, and tell you to find a > > solution, as not growing the business will not be considered an option. There are some DSL providers in some Asian countries who are very interested in IPv6 because they've almost exhausted 10/8 and weren't able to receive a public /8.[1] > I'd check that the board were happy that your customers won't be able to > host web sites or email servers that can be seen in v4 space or even run > p2p apps with v4 customers. > > When I looked at v6 some 10 years ago (I bought a book) it seemed to me > that the world all had to change together and that's not a cutover I can > see working too well. There is an education network in Catalonia that is IPv6 only[2]. They are using proxies to allow access to the traditional IPv4 Internet for specific applications. So there is no need for the entire world to cutover at once. And as Philip says, dual-stack is probably the method that a lot of companies that are transitioning will use. Cheers! [1] This was in March in this year, so they've probably exhausted it by now. [2] http://www.iepg.org/november2004/deploying_5000_ipv6_sites.pdf - This slideshow is from 2004, but Jordi was saying during March that they had rolled out the network. I haven't been able to find anything to back this up... -- Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

Thanks Joe, I must've misunderstood other mailing list's discussions. I thought small-fry ISPs were forced to have only one upstream and only the biggies were able to have more than one. I mean to multi-home to many different providers and an IX or two just like I do today, BTW. Thanks for setting me on the right thought-path and apologies to the list for any confusion. scott --- jabley(a)ca.afilias.info wrote: From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)ca.afilias.info> To: surfer(a)mauigateway.com Cc: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:10:53 -0500 Scott! On 28-Nov-2006, at 18:07, Scott Weeks wrote: > : The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught > : many lessons about what will and will not work (and more > : importantly what will be accepted or not). > > Exactly. I NEED to multihome. I won't accept not being able to do > that. No provider is going to be good enough that I trust ALL of > my connectivity with them and no one else. That settles it right > there. A protocol should not dictate my business practice. You can multi-home in v6 in precisely the same way as you do in v4 if you're an ISP, under all RIR policies. This also goes for anybody who qualified for v4 PI assignments in the ARIN region (so, end users too, at least those who qualify for sufficient addresses to want to multi-home with PI v4 space). Other regions will presumably follow suit if their respective memberships want that to happen. The ability to multi-home using PA v6 space (as is commonly done in the v4 network) depends on deployed filtering practice. Currently, it doesn't work very well; however, if there was pressure from an actual customer base, it could well be that it would work more often. Neither of these require any additional protocol development or implementation effort, and both ought to be very familiar to anybody who is multi-homed using v4. Nothing until this sentence has had anything to do with shim6, for example. There are lots of arguments for why v6 won't/shouldn't/can't succeed as a replacement for v4, but multi-homing is barely one of them. Joe

1 0

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> : : 17 million addresses is simply not enough for a country the size of the : US (and many others). They already have 100 million set top box's : deployed. :-) RFC1918 space is used within a network only. Not across networks. So, one network's IPTV customer can have the same STB IP address as another's when the RCF1918 space is used. You stream from your head-end to your customers only, so there's no need for public IP addressing. The traffic stays within a particular network. That is, unless you're talking about broadcasting on the internet to any STB in the world, or something like that. : Sorry, didn't realise you intended the email to be private. It seemed : of a nature that would interest other people in this thread. It's ok. I was unsure if everyone wanted to hear my non-beer-goggled responses. Responses are so much more interesting when typed while one's beer-goggled... ;-) scott -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. :: Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and :: a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra :: IPs for triple play stuff. --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> : : Think 20 years down the track. : : Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to : EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. : There simply wont be enough of it. Well, I guess I don't mind a private email going public... There're about 17891328 RFC1918 IPs. Let's say you're going to use 7891328 IPs for internal addressing issues. That still leaves 10 million STB IP addresses for your network. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: surfer(a)mauigateway.com Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:47:59 +1300 Think 20 years down the track. Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. There simply wont be enough of it. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:24 a.m. To: Philip D'Ath Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Hello, : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra IPs for triple play stuff. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: jamie.baddeley(a)vpc.co.nz Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:33:07 +1300 The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing. Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6. The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the problem worse. -----Original Message----- One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO. > > Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering > end to end IPv6 in or from NZ. > > Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some > alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will > lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc. > > It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a > question of when. I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-) > > To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or > are we content to be followers in the transition? That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

5 4