7 August 2001 "over 20000 customer networks which constitute over a million computer systems, of which over 150,000 subscribe to our data. " and you do not have the sophistication to include a subject title or identify what company you propose to represent, send with a hotmail address, and issue criticism against undefined vendor software? My humble opinion: Please spare the technical gurus the need to process these types of e-mails Dianna Adair Volpar Inc Aldrin Isaac wrote: > Before I begin, I would like to apologize for any incorrectness in this > message. I am very new to IPv6 so I�m still trying to get all the facts > straight. > > A few individuals in the IPv6 community, including Steve Deering, have told > me that the IPv6 addressing schema has focused on Internet provider/vendor > needs, as the groups that decide on IPv6 do not have adequate, if any, > representation from the non Internet provider/vendor community. I know this > may be bad timing but I feel it is necessary to write to those it may > concern in order to re-iterate some issues. > > I work for a large private information provider. We connect privately to > over 20000 customer networks which constitute over a million computer > systems, of which over 150,000 subscribe to our data. Our private network > has around 250 POPs connecting over 80 countries to our data centers. We > have considered plans to peer several of these POPs to the Internet to > provide �short-cuts� for our customer networks to access various resources > on the Internet. Our network is, however, strictly private. The company > has little or no interest in becoming a network service provider, and even > less interest in becoming an Internet transit service provider. This, > unfortunately for us, means that we would not be eligible to apply for a > [Sub-]TLA, based on RFC 2450. > > In the current IPv6 addressing plan a [Sub-]TLA and all contained addressing > is �owned� by an Internet transit service provider. This presents several > problems. This provider may go out of business, adopt unacceptable business > policies, get bought by a business rival (btw, this has happened to us), > etc. If such things should happen to our [Sub-]TLA provider we stand a risk > of having to change our addressing. This would put our business at > considerable risk due to several factors. > > Although RFC 2347 describes a way to have �addressing independence from > long-haul transit providers� by connecting to the Internet via an > �exchange�, it says nothing about (1) how an exchange can provide dedicated > addressing to a global company, (2) how and who will administer it (3) will > multihoming via an exchange provide the routing �insulation� provided by > peering independantly? If an exchange is administered by a public body, > would we not be entitled to preferential considerations? Who has the > answers to these questions? > > We use the same routers that large providers use. We also happen to have > thousands of distributed servers on our network running several versions of > several operating systems. I have not seen any effort on the part of these > router and systems vendors to simplify the rapid change of addressing. For > us this means not only changing addresses on over 40,000 thousand > interfaces, but also changing over 100,000 lines of distributed policies. > Not to mention all the data storage, thresholding and alarm systems and > databases. Also, in my experience, massive changes have exposed bugs in > vendor software that have caused loss of service to our customers. For > example, when changing policy, if a line of policy does not implement > properly due to some race condition, this can cause loss of service and/or > exposure (btw, we have seen this happen). > > Almost all of our 20000 customer networks use firewalls. Our addresses are > configured into these firewalls. It takes over a year of letters and > meetings with 20000 customers to accomplish this. Not to mention tens of > thousands of man-hours. > > We not only have �canned� connections to customers, but also over 1000 > private connections to our own sources of data, each of which is unique to > that data provider. We need to privately peer with these corporations, > without the ISP in the middle. These peering points are full of policies in > both directions and on both sides. > > I am not sure if there is an IPv6 study group on the impact of changing > addresses, or if anyone has published anything regarding this topic. If > anyone knows of where I can find information regarding this I would > appreciate having it. > > The current addressing scheme does not solve the problem of multi-homing in > any concrete way either. There is a conflict in the current scheme between > aggregation, multi-homing and address transparency. If I want to make a > [Sub-]TLA provider in the Far East happy, I�d need to use an address > assigned by him. However, this may not make any of the other 99 ISPs I > decide to peer with very happy. I can make every [Sub-]TLA provider happy > if I do IPv6 NAT using that providers assigned address. This, however, > defeats the IPv6 claim to rid the world of NAT and create full address > transparency. > > It seems to me that in the current addressing schema, things like route > aggregation and host autoconfiguration has taken precedence over some other > very serious issues. In what balance were these factors measured for route > aggregation to win? Route aggregation solves a single technical problem. > But it doesn't seem to solve any other significant business issue towards > the implementation of IPv6. The industry has proven capable of building > better routers that can handle more route entries. I�m not against route > aggregation. I use it aggressively in our network. But I don�t think it�s > a good idea for a company such as mines to be subjected to having our > address space outside our control. > > I see a lot of intelligent dialogue in these working groups. But it seems > to me no one wants to touch the issues that will actually move IPv6 into the > real world. > > I hate to say this to everyone who's worked so hard on IPv6. The current > IPv6 addressing schema is unusable by anyone except Internet providers > trying to serve the household and small business market. It needs to be > redone to gain the support of large corporations. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------
begin:vcard n:Adair;Dianna tel;fax:408-986-8482 tel;work:408-986-8689 / 800-845-2323 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Volpar Inc adr:;;941 Laurelwood Rd ;Santa Clara ;CA;95054; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-cpt:;-1 end:vcard
