Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
> My understanding is that IETF's role is as a > steward of network-wide value, which is why I thought this might > interest IETF. Not quite. The mission is "to make the Internet work better" and affecting the sales value of 32 bit numbers is not really the same thing, especially since 128 bit numbers are already much cheaper. Regards Brian Carpenter On 03-Aug-21 21:43, John Gilmore wrote: >> Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, >> routers, firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in >> order to get a single extra IP address per subnet? ... >> To me this fails the cost benefit analysis. > > You may be right (see below). One confounding factor is that the > lowest-address draft is the first of a set of upcoming drafts that > propose small, easy improvements in IPv4. This set of changes, in > aggregate, will be worth implementing, because they create hundreds of > millions of newly usable addresses, worth billions of dollars at current > prices. If the cost-vs-benefit is worth doing for ANY ONE of these > changes, or for any subset of these changes, then the deployment effort > may as well include the other, smaller, improvements, which will come > for very close to free. > > I agree that the "lowest address" protocol change is only likely to > produce tens of millions of newly usable addresses, creating only > perhaps $250M to $500M of benefits at current prices. That alone might > not be worth doing, particularly since predicting FUTURE prices of IPv4 > addresses is risky. But let's look at the costs. The end-user cost of > updating can be zero because it can be deferred until equipment is > naturally upgraded for other reasons. Nobody would buy a new router to > get this feature, but eventually almost everybody buys a new router. Or > installs the latest OS release. The change is completely compatible > with existing networks, since the lowest addresses are currently not > known to be used for anything and have been declared obsolete in IETF > standards for decades. This makes the deployment risk very low. > > So I expect the main cost would be for each vendor to make and test > small patches to their existing IPv4 implementations, and then include > those changes as part of their next release or product. Our team > successfully patched both Linux and BSD over a few weeks, and > interoperated them successfully. Based on that experience, I estimate > implementation costs to major IPv4 vendors to be under $10M in total. > By 5 to 10 years after adoption, the improvement would be everywhere, > and will probably have paid off about 25-to-1. I agree that the people > incurring the costs of this proposal are not the people who end up > getting the benefit of the IP addresses; the benefit goes to the > vendors' customers, benefiting the vendors indirectly. So the > cost-benefit tradeoff might be more societal (or network-wide) than > individual or corporate. My understanding is that IETF's role is as a > steward of network-wide value, which is why I thought this might > interest IETF. > > John Gilmore > IPv4 Unicast Extensions > > ___ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
Hi Andrew, On 03.08.21 21:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:43:10AM -0700, John Gilmore wrote: lowest-address draft is the first of a set of upcoming drafts that propose small, easy improvements in IPv4. I think I recalled an (int area?) meeting something like a decade ago where there was a pretty strong sense of consensus that the right thing for the IETF to do is to stop fiddling with IPv4 and to make the path to v6 easier. Dave Meyer, Vince Fuller, and I were the co-authors of that work that was presented here at the int-area. We dropped the idea because there were some serious concerns about undefined behaviors in endpoints that would not expect to see packets with those addresses. If memory serves, Dave Thaler raised those issues, and referred to CPEs and firewalls in particular. The part of the logic that ran *for* using this address space was that it would show appropriate stewardship, by being as efficient as possible. Since then, IPv6 adoption is way up, and so are IPv4 prices; which is why this proposal is so interesting now. That doesn't invalidate your logic, but it's not why we dropped the proposal. Eliot OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
Dear colleagues, I work at the Internet Society but am not speaking for them. On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:43:10AM -0700, John Gilmore wrote: lowest-address draft is the first of a set of upcoming drafts that propose small, easy improvements in IPv4. I think I recalled an (int area?) meeting something like a decade ago where there was a pretty strong sense of consensus that the right thing for the IETF to do is to stop fiddling with IPv4 and to make the path to v6 easier. How would this set of work contribute to that direction? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
Seth, > On Aug 2, 2021, at 5:14 PM, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Bob Hinden writes: > >> Seth, >> >> Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, routers, >> firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in order to get a >> single extra IP address per subnet? Plus then having to deal with the >> complexities of mixed implementations for a very long transition period. >> >> To me this fails the cost benefit analysis. > > Hi Bob, thanks for your reply. > > Yes, we're proposing a change that affects all hosts and routers in > order to get an extra address per subnet. As I described in my reply > to Derek Fawcus, this change -- unlike some of the other changes we > will propose :-) -- has a particularly nice incremental-deployment story > due to RFC 4632 and the largely correct existing behavior around it. > > This is to say that, if you patch your own devices and then deliberately > number a host with the lowest address, the rest of the world can already > talk to that host under existing standards. (Patching your devices has > little cost in functionality to you; you lose only a disused obsolete > form of directed broadcast.) We must live in different worlds. I have many devices on my home network, but I have no ability to patch any of them myself, software updates come from the vendors of these devices. I suspect this is the same for the vast majority of Internet users. I also have no way to know when they would be updated to support your proposal to start using the extra address. Lastly, most users with IPv4, use NAT. There is no address scarcity for them. For example, I use Net 10 on my home network. Adding one additional address isn’t very interesting. Bob > > In this case, if you don't patch your devices, you can also already > talk to anyone else who does; there's no way for you to know! > > Thus, the biggest benefit of officially standardizing this is to > encourage vendors to start changing this behavior now, so that it will > be correspondingly more likely that people who care will have > fully-patched or sufficiently-patched network segments in the future. > With this change, people who don't care or don't know the compatibility > details of devices on their local networks can just continue not to > assign the lowest address at all. (Conveniently, the networks where a > single extra IPv4 address is most valuable are also generally the same > networks where it's easiest for the network administrator to know and > predict what software is running on the network segment.) > > While our other proposals don't have these same properties, they also > imply much larger numbers of IP addresses becoming available, which > might change the cost-benefit comparison. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
What's the problem you're trying to solve here, John, that's not already solved by just using IPv6? I'm not saying there isn't one, but if there is, I'm not seeing it. The ability to free up IPv4 addresses to monetize doesn't seem like it would pay back the people who would be doing the work to free them up, so it's hard to see where the incentive would be for this work to be deployed. Even if there were some small benefit per individual person, it probably wouldn't be enough to justify the trouble of individually making this change. Sure, if a single entity could reap the rewards of this work, that might be worth it to that entity, but that entity couldn't be the one that would pay the cost of making this change. On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 4:43 AM, John Gilmore wrote: > Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, routers, > firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in order to get a > single extra IP address per subnet? ... To me this fails the cost benefit > analysis. > > You may be right (see below). One confounding factor is that the > lowest-address draft is the first of a set of upcoming drafts that propose > small, easy improvements in IPv4. This set of changes, in aggregate, will > be worth implementing, because they create hundreds of millions of newly > usable addresses, worth billions of dollars at current prices. If the > cost-vs-benefit is worth doing for ANY ONE of these changes, or for any > subset of these changes, then the deployment effort may as well include the > other, smaller, improvements, which will come for very close to free. > > I agree that the "lowest address" protocol change is only likely to > produce tens of millions of newly usable addresses, creating only perhaps > $250M to $500M of benefits at current prices. That alone might not be worth > doing, particularly since predicting FUTURE prices of IPv4 addresses is > risky. But let's look at the costs. The end-user cost of updating can be > zero because it can be deferred until equipment is naturally upgraded for > other reasons. Nobody would buy a new router to get this feature, but > eventually almost everybody buys a new router. Or installs the latest OS > release. The change is completely compatible with existing networks, since > the lowest addresses are currently not known to be used for anything and > have been declared obsolete in IETF standards for decades. This makes the > deployment risk very low. > > So I expect the main cost would be for each vendor to make and test small > patches to their existing IPv4 implementations, and then include those > changes as part of their next release or product. Our team successfully > patched both Linux and BSD over a few weeks, and interoperated them > successfully. Based on that experience, I estimate implementation costs to > major IPv4 vendors to be under $10M in total. By 5 to 10 years after > adoption, the improvement would be everywhere, and will probably have paid > off about 25-to-1. I agree that the people incurring the costs of this > proposal are not the people who end up getting the benefit of the IP > addresses; the benefit goes to the vendors' customers, benefiting the > vendors indirectly. So the cost-benefit tradeoff might be more societal (or > network-wide) than individual or corporate. My understanding is that IETF's > role is as a steward of network-wide value, which is why I thought this > might interest IETF. > > John Gilmore > IPv4 Unicast Extensions > > ___ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
On 2021-08-03, at 11:43, John Gilmore wrote: > > create hundreds of > millions of newly usable addresses, worth billions of dollars at current > prices. How do you make sure those billions arrive at the millions who get fed with the externality of this change? Changing routers, even if it is only a config change, costs money and creates opportunity costs (lost time), a cost that is better invested in accelerating the migration to IPv6. Grüße, Carsten ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:43:10AM -0700, John Gilmore wrote: > Our team successfully patched both Linux and BSD over a few weeks, and > interoperated them successfully. Linux doesn't need a patch, just a configuration change (use the 'ip' command to delete the 0-host address/prefix). I know because a number of years ago I did this with my home set up where my ISP proveded a /29, and I used all 8 addresses without NAT. As I recall, I did something like using a RFC 1918 prefix as the attached net to an interface, and installed a static /28 route for the public prefix to the same interface on the router (so it would ARP). Then it was simply a question of how to get the various hosts to initiate outgoing connections using that public address. Linux was easy, as one can specify the source address for the default route. One one box I used a tunnel to the edge router to achieve a similar effect. I imagine there are a few ways to achieve these w/o forcing use of NAT. So operationally one can reclaim both the all-0 and all-1 host addresses _now_, if one knows what one is doing. So while I don't object to the change, I don't view it as freeing up addresses which can't already be used. DF ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address
> Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, > routers, firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in > order to get a single extra IP address per subnet? ... > To me this fails the cost benefit analysis. You may be right (see below). One confounding factor is that the lowest-address draft is the first of a set of upcoming drafts that propose small, easy improvements in IPv4. This set of changes, in aggregate, will be worth implementing, because they create hundreds of millions of newly usable addresses, worth billions of dollars at current prices. If the cost-vs-benefit is worth doing for ANY ONE of these changes, or for any subset of these changes, then the deployment effort may as well include the other, smaller, improvements, which will come for very close to free. I agree that the "lowest address" protocol change is only likely to produce tens of millions of newly usable addresses, creating only perhaps $250M to $500M of benefits at current prices. That alone might not be worth doing, particularly since predicting FUTURE prices of IPv4 addresses is risky. But let's look at the costs. The end-user cost of updating can be zero because it can be deferred until equipment is naturally upgraded for other reasons. Nobody would buy a new router to get this feature, but eventually almost everybody buys a new router. Or installs the latest OS release. The change is completely compatible with existing networks, since the lowest addresses are currently not known to be used for anything and have been declared obsolete in IETF standards for decades. This makes the deployment risk very low. So I expect the main cost would be for each vendor to make and test small patches to their existing IPv4 implementations, and then include those changes as part of their next release or product. Our team successfully patched both Linux and BSD over a few weeks, and interoperated them successfully. Based on that experience, I estimate implementation costs to major IPv4 vendors to be under $10M in total. By 5 to 10 years after adoption, the improvement would be everywhere, and will probably have paid off about 25-to-1. I agree that the people incurring the costs of this proposal are not the people who end up getting the benefit of the IP addresses; the benefit goes to the vendors' customers, benefiting the vendors indirectly. So the cost-benefit tradeoff might be more societal (or network-wide) than individual or corporate. My understanding is that IETF's role is as a steward of network-wide value, which is why I thought this might interest IETF. John Gilmore IPv4 Unicast Extensions ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
