Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
On 07.10.19 13:21, Job Snijders wrote: > Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole I did. "the RIR system" does not mean "only RIPE". -kai
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Moin, on 07.10.19 12:56, Gert Doering wrote: > I take a bit of offense here. That's sad, and unintended; but that topic is totally OT here, as it is v4-only and about 1992-20something. -kai
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Am 07.10.19 um 06:07 schrieb Michel Py: >> Kai 'wusel' Siering >> Rationale: an internal network needing more than 16 million IPv4 addresses >> (10/8) does have the power to solve their >> addressing needs with IPv6. This isn't true for newcomers that have to deal >> with old players not enabling v6. > I do not agree because it does not fit my use-case, but this is the best > argument I have heard for many years. > > Keep in mind though : your idea is great, but it has been tried many times, > for more than a decade, including by people who are respected players, big > shots, and have serious clout, and it has repeatedly failed. What makes you > think that you can make it work ? Everyone has tried, everyone has failed. > Multiple times. What exactly are you asking about? Un-reserving 240/4 in general, or adding it to the public space instead of wasting just more precious v4 space on intranets? First, and again, I do not aim to 'liberate' 240/4, 0/8 or 127/8. From my perspective IPv4 entered the stage 30+ years ago and is now on it's farewell tour — which will take some more decades, until it finally becomes irrelevant in the DFZ. Any changes to it, like changing 240/4's status, is robbing a dead body. But _if_ people are considering to do this, to me public unicast is the only valid option. Again, if you need more that 16 million IPs for your intranet, IPv6 is your answer. I understand you dislike that, fine by me; so go and grab unannounced public space, just be prepared for renumbering. A quarter of 44/8 is already in active use by AWS, more of that will happen: The Clouds need unprecedented amounts of v4 space. I have no doubt the RIR system will again fail to protect the newcomers, but raising my voice is the only thing I can do. I'm not a LIR, ATM I don't represent a LIR — and even if, as you already said, it's the money that decides. Which means: 240/8 e. g. needs to go to and used by AWS, 241/8 to GCP, 242/8 to CF; that should give lazy eyeball ISPs a reason to fix their v4 gear, and I think 6 months from an IANA announcement of 240/4 becoming public unicast to the first allocating is plenty of time for those involved. Would that fix end-to-end globally? No. Does it matter? Not really. ISP<>Cloud/CDN is what matters today; the rest will follow, taking the scenic route. > I must have missed what news you have about it. You have missed my point completely – see the "please note" in my post –, presumably as it doesn't fit your point of view. I also have "enough" v4 space for the forseeable future for my use case; I came early to the party, and covered my needs. Unlike you, though, I still do look out of my swampy pool and ponder about how things _should_ be, in that tiny dinosaur brain of mine ;) -kai
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Moin, am 06.10.19 um 10:59 schrieb Gert Doering: > Hi, > > On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: >> If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the >> only valid option is "public unicast", spread across the RIRs as >> recovered space. As has been stated here may times, IPv4 is here >> to stay, so it's vital that relevant amounts of "new" space are put >> into the public pool. > I'd actually say "private" is a better denomination. > > To make this useful as "public unicast", you need to upgrade *everything* > in the path between a device using 240/4 and "whatever it wants to talk to", > because un-upgraded routers or firewalls will just drop your packets > otherwise - so, if RIPE were to give out a subnet of 240/4, it would not > be very useful for "Internet" usage. I didn't say it would be a quick win; I'm aware of the issues. 240/4 space would remain of limited reachability for the forseeable future. After being declared to become public space via an RFC, devices that still receive updates will learn about 240/4, thus lessening the reachablility issue over time, though. Rationale: an internal network needing more than 16 million IPv4 addresses (10/8) does have the power to solve their addressing needs with IPv6. This isn't true for newcomers that have to deal with old players not enabling v6. Please note: I'm not proposing do touch 240/4, 0/8 or 127/8, but _if_ those are touched, they should be given to the public. Regards, -kai
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Am 05.10.19 um 22:30 schrieb Michel Py: > This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it. If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the only valid option is "public unicast", spread across the RIRs as recovered space. As has been stated here may times, IPv4 is here to stay, so it's vital that relevant amounts of "new" space are put into the public pool. > Net result : organizations that need more than 10/8 are now (and they are > plenty of examples) squatting un-announced DoD space such as 30/8. Maybe someone should tell them about IPv6 then. -kai
Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
Am 03.10.19 um 17:11 schrieb Tim Chown:
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 16:02, Jens Link wrote:
>>
>> Tim Chown writes:
>>
>>> (Surprised we’re having this conversation in 2019, as the final fumes of
>>> IPv4 address space disappear from Europe…)
>> If you had told me 10 or even 5 years ago that I would be having the
>> conversation in 2019 I would have laughed at you. Now it's a very sad
>> situation. IPv4 has won.
Well, the source for "new" IPv4 addresses is finally drying out in the RIPE
region, so I do not agree with "IPv4 has won"; it lived an amazing life so far
and is, since several years, transitioning into it's evening of life. I
wouldn't bet on a date when IPv4 in the public Internet will be shut down,
though. Not even a decade, to be honest ...
>> I had a discussion over lunch about v6 yesterday (which is part of the
>> reason I started this today) and all I heard "but that is different
>> then IPv4. I don't like this!"
>
> There will always be a legacy tail. The dinosaurs can wallow in their swamp.
Some of those dinosauers are still in their diapers, though.
> Those who deploy v6 will benefit from it. Others will feel the heat of not
> moving; here in the UK it’s Sky and BT who have between them ~10M households
> on IPv6. That’s not failure.
No, it's a start; over here in Germany, most mobile operators give you RFC6890
or RFC1918 addresses, still. Cable operators hand out DS (-Lite, mostly) for
consumers, (semi-) fixed IPv4 (no DS) for commercial clients. FritzVPN, the VPN
solution of popular CPE maker AVM, still fails completely with IPv6, both as
transport and as payload. All in all, it's more failure than success (and even
progress is fscking slow; Vodafone is allegedly starting somethings like
DS-lite on mobile these days, o2 on mobiles uses public v6 a long time already
— for VoLTE, but not data). But then it's Germany, where anything IP is Neuland
anyway.
> New communities will benefit. For example, the largest science experiments
> are now migrating to IPv6, e.g., CERN and WLCG is 70% there, SKA will use it.
But will they go the whole way, i. e. make their stuff accessible from the
outside, including informational webservers and other infrastructure (DNS, MX),
v6-only? Until much used resources go v6-only, there's no chance in hell that
"[o]thers will feel the heat of not moving", as everyone still makes everything
available via v4.
So, why not make ripe.net v6-only by 2020-01-01, as RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool will
have run dry by then anyway?
Am 03.10.19 um 13:11 schrieb Joao Luis Silva Damas:
> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:58, Uros Gaber mailto:u...@ub330.net>>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> Wow, first I had to look at today's date, I thought this was a April Fools
>> joke mail.
>
> Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I expected if I
> instinctively expanded the name to that of someone I know, like the wg
> co-chair or so.
Well, off-topic, but more noteworthy, the RIPE NCC mailservers are, as of
today, still running Exim 4.92.2, remotely exploitable according to
CVE-2019-16928.
Am 03.10.19 um 12:34 schrieb Jens Link:
> Hi,
>
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
According to the mailing list archive, "[t]he IPv6 Working Group is for anyone
with an interest in the next generation Internet Protocol. The activities of
the WG include education and outreach, sharing deployment experiences and
discussing and fixing operational issues". So, Jens shared his IPv6 deployment
experiences ("isn't happening"), maybe there's something the IPv6 WG can do to
enforce IPv6 deployment? BTW, at least in terms of availability v6 is the
current, v4 the legacy Internet Protocol, maybe that wording should be updated?
Regards,
-kai
