Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:23:59AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote: IVI is stateless, which means it requires 1 to 1 IPv4 to IPv6 mapping. NAT64 allows multiplexing. I didn't fully understand it, but, Ma Yan presented IVI with multiplexing in a stateless environment at APNIC 29. Owen (who is very glad these are technologies OTHER people will use) eat your own dog-food.. :) the house has been running IVI for several years now. everyone on hte house net is native v6 only. when there is a need, we pull a v4 address outo fhte DHCP pool and map it to the v6 address in question. when we're done, unlink the binding. from the outside - looks just like a nomral DHCP lease. --bill
Re: Locations with no good Internet
Patrick Giagnocavo patr...@zill.net wrote: Isn't this really an issue (political) with tariffed T1 prices rather than a technical problem? I was told that most T1s are provisioned over a DSLAM these days anyways, and that the key difference between T1 and DSL was the SLA (99.99% guarantee vs. when we get it fixed). I don't know about anything other than Qwest-land in Arizona, but we are seeing the few T1s that are still in service provisioned as you described: a 2-wire DSL connection, although not out of a local DSLAM. I think it depends on your definition of the box that's being used for connections as a DSLAM. It's certainly not the same traffic engineering as DSL, because DSL circuits are muxed at the DSLAM (at least in Qwest-land) and may or may not be subject to congestion when leaving the neighborhood remote terminal DSLAM. We for sure NEVER see any congestion on the T1s that are being provisioned using DSL technology. Now, whether that's the same chassis with engineering over an uplink, or two separate chassis in the same road-side wart for the two different services, that's a deployment issue. In other words, I think you're right about the technology involved (DSL-ish 2 wire circuits) being used to deliver, but there's more to it than repair time SLA when it comes to selling the same 2 wires as DSL for $39.95 and T1 for $399.95. (again, at least out here in the Wild West) That being said, I think your fundamental point is likely correct, something well known to everyone in this business: the cost to a Telco to provide T1 service is not 10x the cost to provide DSL service at similar speeds, and when there is that much additional marginal revenue being generated, they are going to fight with politics, tariffs, and any other tool at their disposal to keep the additional revenue coming in as long as possible. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms
Re: IP4 Space
On 06/03/2010, at 1:06 AM, David Conrad wrote: Mark, On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote: On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote: When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space will quickly become worth the effort. Only to the extent that the cost of IPv6 migration exceeds the cost of recovering space. You're remembering to include the cost of migrating both sides, for all combinations of sides interested in communicating, right? In some cases, that cost for one of those sides will be quite high. Yes, but I only need to pay the cost of my side. There's sure to be an upper-bound on the cost of v4 space, limited by the magnitude of effort required to do whatever you want to do without v4. The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want without IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, and as such, allocated-but-not-efficiently-used addresses will likely become worth the effort to reclaim. That isn't a likely outcome, though. We'll never need to do without IPv4, it'll always be available, just in a SP-NATted form which doesn't work very well. Continuing to put up with that state of affairs comes with its own set of costs and obstacles which need to be weighed up against the cost of migrating to dual-stack (unicast global IPv6 + SPNAT IPv4) to extract yourself from the IPv4 tar-baby. Not migrating will be increasingly expensive over time, the costs of migrating will diminish, each individual operator will reach their own point when staying where they are is more expensive than getting with the program. And most of the participants on this mailing list will probably reach that point sooner than they think. My mom will probably never see a need to move beyond IPv4. But her next door neighbor with the bittorrent client and WoW habit probably will, and any content provider who's interested in having a relationship with their eyeballs which isn't intermediated by bollocky SPNAT boxes probably will too. Horses for courses. What I do know is that this migrating to IPv6 is expensive so nobody wants to do it, is a canard that's been trotted out for most of the last decade as a justification for doing nothing. As an ISP that's running dual-stack right now, I can tell you from personal experience that the cost impact is grossly overstated, and under the circumstances is probably better off ignored. Just sayin'. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote: On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving toward dual-stack ;) Nice. Steve er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand? dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses. I would expect the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host to be a multiple of the number of v4 addresses, depending on the type of host. That's because you haven't done it yet. When you start doing it, you'll see that the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host will bear almost no relationship whatsoever to any metrics you've previously used to allocated IPv4 addresses. Or, dual stack today. When you've run out of IPv4 addresses for new end users, set them up an IPv6 HTTP proxy, SMTP relay and DNS resolver and/or charge a premium for IPv4 addresses when you start to sweat. I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn dynamic IPv4 addresses into shared dynamic IPv4 addresses, we'll have enough spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future. If I have half a million residential subscribers and I can get ten subscribers onto each NATted IPv4 addresses, then I only need 50,000 addresses to service them. Yet I have half a million addresses *right now*, which I won't be giving back to my RIR. So that turns into 450,000 saleable addresses for premium customers after the SP-NAT box is turned on, right? Problem solved :-) - mark -- Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: Locations with no good Internet
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Joel Snyder joel.sny...@opus1.com wrote: Patrick Giagnocavo patr...@zill.net wrote: Isn't this really an issue (political) with tariffed T1 prices rather than a technical problem? I was told that most T1s are provisioned over a DSLAM these days anyways, and that the key difference between T1 and DSL was the SLA (99.99% guarantee vs. when we get it fixed). I don't know about anything other than Qwest-land in Arizona, but we are seeing the few T1s that are still in service provisioned as you described: a 2-wire DSL connection, although not out of a local DSLAM. Now, whether that's the same chassis with engineering over an uplink, or two separate chassis in the same road-side wart for the two different services, that's a deployment issue. For a T1 it's a smart jack on each end (and often repeaters in the middle) that have been engineered to run an HDSL signal between them and a classic T1 signal outward from each end. One independent set per T1; they aren't aggregated until after they're converted back to a classic T1 signal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_interface_device#Smartjack http://help.trixbox.com/Troubleshooting/What_is_a_Smart_Jack%3F The major difference between using HDSL smart jacks and classic smart jacks is that the HDSL ones don't need wire that's in quite as good shape and they don't need repeaters between you and the CO as often. They're still very much a T1 service. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote: On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote: On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving toward dual-stack ;) Nice. Steve er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand? dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses. I would expect the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host to be a multiple of the number of v4 addresses, depending on the type of host. That's because you haven't done it yet. When you start doing it, you'll see that the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host will bear almost no relationship whatsoever to any metrics you've previously used to allocated IPv4 addresses. I have. Windows XP, for instance, will auto assign multiple addresses during auto configuration, including random identifiers. If you through in multiple routers for redundancy, then you start to have a multiplying effect, compared to your typical one v4 address per end user host. Also, the number of publicly routeable v6 addresses assigned to hosts is surely much higher, on average, than the public v4 addresses assigned to those hosts. Or, dual stack today. When you've run out of IPv4 addresses for new end users, set them up an IPv6 HTTP proxy, SMTP relay and DNS resolver and/or charge a premium for IPv4 addresses when you start to sweat. I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn dynamic IPv4 addresses into shared dynamic IPv4 addresses, we'll have enough spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future. If I have half a million residential subscribers and I can get ten subscribers onto each NATted IPv4 addresses, then I only need 50,000 addresses to service them. Yet I have half a million addresses *right now*, which I won't be giving back to my RIR. So that turns into 450,000 saleable addresses for premium customers after the SP-NAT box is turned on, right? Possibly. I understand how to do HTTP proxies today, and understand its limitations. But it's a far more appealing technology than all these future technologies being proposed that fit in the 'once we all work out that we can use' category. -- Dan White
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote: On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote: On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote: On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving toward dual-stack ;) Nice. Steve er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand? dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses. I would expect the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host to be a multiple of the number of v4 addresses, depending on the type of host. That's because you haven't done it yet. When you start doing it, you'll see that the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host will bear almost no relationship whatsoever to any metrics you've previously used to allocated IPv4 addresses. I have. Windows XP, for instance, will auto assign multiple addresses during auto configuration, including random identifiers. If you through in multiple routers for redundancy, then you start to have a multiplying effect, compared to your typical one v4 address per end user host. Also, the number of publicly routeable v6 addresses assigned to hosts is surely much higher, on average, than the public v4 addresses assigned to those hosts. Or, dual stack today. When you've run out of IPv4 addresses for new end users, set them up an IPv6 HTTP proxy, SMTP relay and DNS resolver and/or charge a premium for IPv4 addresses when you start to sweat. I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn dynamic IPv4 addresses into shared dynamic IPv4 addresses, we'll have enough spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future. If I have half a million residential subscribers and I can get ten subscribers onto each NATted IPv4 addresses, then I only need 50,000 addresses to service them. Yet I have half a million addresses *right now*, which I won't be giving back to my RIR. So that turns into 450,000 saleable addresses for premium customers after the SP-NAT box is turned on, right? Possibly. I understand how to do HTTP proxies today, and understand its limitations. But it's a far more appealing technology than all these future technologies being proposed that fit in the 'once we all work out that we can use' category. These IPv6-only systems are not far out, i am running a beta service using NAT64/DNS64 today. I believe a reasonable level off basic service can be provided today using IPv6-only + NAT64/DNS64. And, of course, native IPv6 content is a better QoE than the common NAT44 folks have today. I have demonstrations of windows 7 netbooks and Symbian Nokia smartphones doing common function with only IPv6 addresses on the end systems, no IPv4 except for the translation pool on the NAT64: www.youtube.com/theipv6guy Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks are ... and as others have pointed out, CGN will be an expensive and poor QoE reality for those clinging to IPv4 -- Dan White
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote: Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks are ... and as others have pointed out, CGN will be an expensive and poor QoE reality for those clinging to IPv4 I'm personally afraid that EU+US companies may not see the risk. Majority of people in EU+US who want broadband and have purchase power for the services, should already have connectivity, as broadband penetration is somewhat complete. Companies offering products/services may view that implementing IPv6 will not bring them new business, but implementing it carries non-zero cost. And providing access to consumers who are not potential customers increases costs without increasing revenue. The major losers in EU+US market seem to be start-ups, who can't get addresses and thus have fraction of the market size giving existing companies unfair competitive advantage, nearly impossible to overcome. I would personally hope that EU+US would mandate that residential ISP add IPv6 to their subscribers by default, without possibility to opt-out in n years time. Hopefully n would be no more than 3. APAC and Africa surely are completely different matter. -- ++ytti
SDSL vs T1 (was Locations with no good Internet)
Patrick Giagnocavo patr...@zill.net wrote: Isn't this really an issue (political) with tariffed T1 prices rather than a technical problem? Yes, of course. It's even worse if you are tied to one particular ISP (VZB) by non-portable IP addresses. I wanted service from AS701 with a V.35 hand-off; both requirements (the ISP choice and the hand-off type) were/are for sentimental reasons. Speed was/is a lower-priority concern, i.e., I was/am willing to live with sub-T1 speeds if it allows me to keep my 701-assigned IP addresses for a lower monthly extortion payment. My choices were: 1. Get a T1, enjoy the bandwidth (I live in an alternate Universe in which T1 bandwidth is almost infinity) and the SLA, and getting a V.35 hand-off would have been as easy as pulling an Adtran DSU out of my junk pile. But it was something like $650/month, probably before adding taxes and other extortions. 2. Opt for SDSL instead. I'm within a short walk of my CO, but I opt for only 384 kbps to reduce the monthly extortion payment. And since I still want V.35 hand-off, add the expense of designing and building my own CPE for it - but it's a one-time expense, and I have learned a *lot* in the process - as they say, happiness is a journey, not a destination. I was told that most T1s are provisioned over a DSLAM these days anyways, and that the key difference between T1 and DSL was the SLA (99.99% guarantee vs. when we get it fixed). My situation is different because I am deliberately opting for a lower- speed service than what's available. At sub-T1 speeds SDSL has one advantage: the actual electrical signaling rate on the circuit is lowered to match the subscription data rate, unlike the fractional T1 kludge. But if you are specifically looking for a 1.5 Mbps service and are prepared to pay for 1.5 Mbps, the T1 vs. SDSL trade-off starts to look murkier: * With a T1 regardless of who serves it to you and how, you still get the classic HDLC encapsulation supported by every decent WAN router; with SDSL served out of a Covad DSLAM you get ATM cells on the line, wrapped in a wacky frame format: http://ifctfvax.Harhan.ORG/OpenWAN/2B1Q/flavors/nokia.html * Prior to my invention of the OSDCU gadget, it was not possible to connect a Covad SDSL line to a real router like Cisco (or Juniper or a BSD/Linux box or whatever), only to some very inferior router brands supplied as the standard CPE. And as far as my gadget goes, I've built the hardware, but I haven't finished the firmware part yet, so it's still technically vaporware. * ATM is much less bit-efficient than HDLC, so a Covad SDSL circuit sold as 1.5 Mbps actually has a little less real data carrying capacity than a T1. * I don't know off the top of my head what the monthly price is for Covad SDSL at 1.5 Mbps, and there probably is some variability between different ISPs who go through Covad, but I assume that even with a good deal it would still be a bit more than what I pay to VZB for 384 kbps. T1 prices have been coming down OTOH, at least for those who aren't tied to VZB. But I still expect T1 to be at least a little more expensive than SDSL @ 1.5 Mbps. I don't know how big this price delta is right now though - would anyone here have a better idea? The magnitude of this price delta ought to have a critical impact on whether or not it is worth putting up with all the quirks of SDSL listed above. For my peculiar situation (willing to live with 384 kbps and tied to VZB) the price delta (3x increase in the monthly payment) is most definitely worth the one-time expense of finishing my OSDCU gadget, but I don't know how the cards would fall for someone who is looking for full 1.5 Mbps (or more with bonding) and who has a choice of ISPs. And T3/DS3 can run over what, 4 copper pairs? Yet how much is the typical tariffed rate for that? DS3 over 4 copper pairs? ~11 Mbps symmetric on each pair? That seems like squeezing a lot out of a copper pair to me. Over what distance? William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: The major difference between using HDSL smart jacks and classic smart jacks is that the HDSL ones don't need wire that's in quite as good shape and they don't need repeaters between you and the CO as often. They're still very much a T1 service. Yup. Even though at the transceiver chipset level HDSL and SDSL are very much alike, the powers that be configure them very very differently at the higher layers. HDSL units are configured to pass the entire T1 frame structure (SF/ESF) unaltered, and within that T1 frame structure you get the good old familiar HDLC. Covad SDSL uses the same 2B1Q line code as HDSL and even the same transceiver chip (Bt8970 or RS8973), but stuffs the bit stream with ATM cells in a wacky non-standard frame structure instead of HDLC or T1 frames. One can either pay a monthly premium for a more standards-based bit stream format, or pay less per month for the hoary
Re: IP4 Space
My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it. I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four number dotted quad was easy to remember, an IPv6 address.. not so much. I wished they had made that a little easier when they were drafting up the protocol specs. basically, you need technical knowledge to even understand how the IP address is split up. I wished ARIN would waive the fee for service provider's first block of IPv6 as well. It would help make the dual stack deployment easier. I know IPv4 is running out. I understand the situation. I just wished they had put a little more thought into the user experience side of the addressing. You can all flog me now if you want. I expect it. I'm green on IPv6. I would love the education if I am wrong. -S Mark Newton wrote: On 06/03/2010, at 1:06 AM, David Conrad wrote: Mark, On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote: On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote: When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space will quickly become worth the effort. Only to the extent that the cost of IPv6 migration exceeds the cost of recovering space. You're remembering to include the cost of migrating both sides, for all combinations of sides interested in communicating, right? In some cases, that cost for one of those sides will be quite high. Yes, but I only need to pay the cost of my side. There's sure to be an upper-bound on the cost of v4 space, limited by the magnitude of effort required to do whatever you want to do without v4. The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want without IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, and as such, allocated-but-not-efficiently-used addresses will likely become worth the effort to reclaim. That isn't a likely outcome, though. We'll never need to do without IPv4, it'll always be available, just in a SP-NATted form which doesn't work very well. Continuing to put up with that state of affairs comes with its own set of costs and obstacles which need to be weighed up against the cost of migrating to dual-stack (unicast global IPv6 + SPNAT IPv4) to extract yourself from the IPv4 tar-baby. Not migrating will be increasingly expensive over time, the costs of migrating will diminish, each individual operator will reach their own point when staying where they are is more expensive than getting with the program. And most of the participants on this mailing list will probably reach that point sooner than they think. My mom will probably never see a need to move beyond IPv4. But her next door neighbor with the bittorrent client and WoW habit probably will, and any content provider who's interested in having a relationship with their eyeballs which isn't intermediated by bollocky SPNAT boxes probably will too. Horses for courses. What I do know is that this migrating to IPv6 is expensive so nobody wants to do it, is a canard that's been trotted out for most of the last decade as a justification for doing nothing. As an ISP that's running dual-stack right now, I can tell you from personal experience that the cost impact is grossly overstated, and under the circumstances is probably better off ignored. Just sayin'. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
In message 20100306184958.ga17...@mx.ytti.net, Saku Ytti writes: On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote: Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks are ... and as others have pointed out, CGN will be an expensive and poor QoE reality for those clinging to IPv4 I'm personally afraid that EU+US companies may not see the risk. Majority of people in EU+US who want broadband and have purchase power for the services, should already have connectivity, as broadband penetration is somewhat complete. Companies offering products/services may view that implementing IPv6 will not bring them new business, but implementing it carries non-zero cost. And providing access to consumers who are not potential customers increases costs without increasing revenue. Not implementing IPv6 will start to lose them business soon as they won't be able to reach IPv6 only sites. Not quite yet but soon. While all the services that there customers want to reach are available over IPv4 they will be fine. Once they are not they people will start to leave for a competitor that does offer IPv6 access. ISP's need to be asking themselves how much business are they willing to lose before they deploy IPv6. If they answer is none they should be moving now. The major losers in EU+US market seem to be start-ups, who can't get addresses and thus have fraction of the market size giving existing companies unfair competitive advantage, nearly impossible to overcome. I would personally hope that EU+US would mandate that residential ISP add IPv6 to their subscribers by default, without possibility to opt-out in n years time. Hopefully n would be no more than 3. APAC and Africa surely are completely different matter. -- ++ytti -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IP4 Space
On 3/6/10 1:32 PM, Shon Elliott wrote: My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it. I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four number dotted quad was easy to remember, an IPv6 address.. not so much. I wished they had made that a little easier when they were drafting up the protocol specs. basically, you need technical knowledge to even understand how the IP address is split up. I wished ARIN would waive the fee for service provider's first block of IPv6 as well. It would help make the dual stack deployment easier. There *is* a fee waiver in effect as introduced in 2008. However, if you've waited until now you only get 50% waived in 2010 and 25% waived in 2011. The waiver expires in 2012. Also, if your IPv4 fees are higher than the IPv6 fees would be, you only pay the higher one so the IPv6 block would be effectively free. ~Seth
Comcast cust cannot reach Chris Boyd's IP x.x.x.x (was Problem from Comcast Network to The Planet)
Message: 7 Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:40:45 -0600 From: Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com Subject: Re: Problem from Comcast Network to The Planet To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: 5df52a7e-7288-433b-8b08-ea9530b29...@gizmopartners.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I don't know what's going on in the Comcast network, but I've been having similar fits with a single IP address in my network. Comcast can get to nearby IP addresses in the same /24 no issue. The Comcast customer in my case is in Florida, and I get to them via TWTelecom. I know it's not my net, and TWT was very helpful and knows it's not their net. Attempts to get Comcast to look into it seem to end with them pinging their customer's IP address from the Comcast support center and terminating the call since they can reach them. --Chris Chris, Maybe Comcast abuse is blackholing the host? What is the host IP? Is it more than one Comcast customer unable to reach that host? What is the IP of the Comcast customer(s) unable to reach it? What do traces from the host to the customer and from customer to host look like?
Re: SDSL vs T1 (was Locations with no good Internet)
On 3/6/2010 12:23 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote: ... I wanted service from AS701 with a V.35 hand-off; both requirements (the ISP choice and the hand-off type) were/are for sentimental reasons. Speed was/is a lower-priority concern, i.e., I was/am willing to live with sub-T1 speeds if it allows me to keep my 701-assigned IP addresses for a lower monthly extortion payment. ... You missed an option. Just change to another ISP. I know of at least one AS701 address block still attached to a company that hasn't been their customer for ten years or so. ...
Re: SDSL vs T1 (was Locations with no good Internet)
Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote: You missed an option. Just change to another ISP. I know of at least one AS701 address block still attached to a company that hasn't been their customer for ten years or so. How is that possible? AFAIK no local politician has passed an IP address portability law yet. If my circuit from VZB were disconnected, wouldn't they release the address block for reuse by other customers just like any other ISP? I'm kinda guessing that you're suggesting that VZB's business practices are lax and that I may slip through the cracks? But there is no guarantee of any kind, is there? If they were to release/reuse my address block like they would have every right to, what recourse could I possibly have as a voluntarily disconnected customer? And even if the block remained unused / not reassigned after I left VZB, how could I possibly get it routed to me while connected through another ISP? I just don't get it - I don't see how this could be done without some local politician passing an IP address portability law like has been discussed recently. MS
Re: IP4 Space
In message 4b92c9f7.4080...@unwiredbb.com, Shon Elliott writes: My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it. I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four numb er dotted quad was easy to remember, an IPv6 address.. not so much. I wished the y had made that a little easier when they were drafting up the protocol specs. Actually a lot of thought went into how to present 128 bit addresses and the current format is actually easier and more compact than the alternatives. basically, you need technical knowledge to even understand how the IP address is split up. Actually IPv6 address are usually easier to split up than IPv4 addresses. You can take the presentation format of a IPv6 address and work out the host and network components without having to bit logic in your head. Take this real address 2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc. Its expanded form is 2001:0470:1f00:0820:0214:22ff:fed9:fbdc. The network component is 2001:470:1f00:820::/64. The host component it ::214:22ff:fed9:fbdc. If it was from a /56 the site would be 2001:470:1f00:800::/56 and it would be the 0x20 (32) subnet. If it was from a /48 the site would be 2001:470:1f00::/48 and it would be in the 0x820 (2080) subnet. IPv6 addresses are big enough that one can put the break points on nibble boundaries so that it is easy for the end user to work this all out. ISP's may get non-nibble break points but end users, unless the ISP is being stupid, will not see them. Compared with you have 192.223.8.96/27 IPv6 is easy. Bigger but easier which you will find once you actually work with IPv6 addresses. I wished ARIN would waive the fee for service provider's first bloc k of IPv6 as well. It would help make the dual stack deployment easier. I know IPv4 is running out. I understand the situation. I just wished they ha d put a little more thought into the user experience side of the addressing. Yo u can all flog me now if you want. I expect it. I'm green on IPv6. I would love the education if I am wrong. -S -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Mark Newton wrote: On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote: On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving toward dual-stack ;) Nice. Steve er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand? dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses. I would expect the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host to be a multiple of the number of v4 addresses, depending on the type of host. That's because you haven't done it yet. When you start doing it, you'll see that the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host will bear almost no relationship whatsoever to any metrics you've previously used to allocated IPv4 addresses. With all due respect, your latter statement is true, but, your former is not. While there is no direct relationship, at least on my network, I can guarantee you that most of the hosts, especially all of the ones that received static addresses, did end up with more IPv6 addresses than they have IPv4 addresses. I don't know whether the person who stated the expectation has or has not added IPv6 capability to his network yet. I know I have, and, i know his statement essentially holds true in my case. Or, dual stack today. When you've run out of IPv4 addresses for new end users, set them up an IPv6 HTTP proxy, SMTP relay and DNS resolver and/or charge a premium for IPv4 addresses when you start to sweat. I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn dynamic IPv4 addresses into shared dynamic IPv4 addresses, we'll have enough spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future. Ew... The more I hear people say this, the more I am _REALLY_ glad I am unlikely to have to live behind such an environment. I cannot imagine that this will provide anything remotely resembling a good user experience, or, even close to the current degraded user experience most people tolerate behind their current NAT devices. If I have half a million residential subscribers and I can get ten subscribers onto each NATted IPv4 addresses, then I only need 50,000 addresses to service them. Yet I have half a million addresses *right now*, which I won't be giving back to my RIR. So that turns into 450,000 saleable addresses for premium customers after the SP-NAT box is turned on, right? Interesting way of thinking about it. I suspect that rather than pay your premium prices, the customers you just degraded in order to charge them more for the service they had will look to your competitors for better service. Problem solved :-) Indeed, once your customers move to a provider that will respect them, their problem is solved. Owen
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
On Mar 7, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote: Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks are ... and as others have pointed out, CGN will be an expensive and poor QoE reality for those clinging to IPv4 I'm personally afraid that EU+US companies may not see the risk. Majority of people in EU+US who want broadband and have purchase power for the services, should already have connectivity, as broadband penetration is somewhat complete. While it is more complete than many other countries, there are still rural areas where it is not, and, the relatively high churn rate in competitive markets will actually still lead to a need for increasing address allocations and assignments as customers move from ISPs that already have space for them to ISPs that need more space. If you look at the ARIN consumption statistics, or, the RIPE consumption statistics, there is certainly no indication that the demand for addresses has been significantly reduced in EU+US. Companies offering products/services may view that implementing IPv6 will not bring them new business, but implementing it carries non-zero cost. And providing access to consumers who are not potential customers increases costs without increasing revenue. It may not bring you new business, but, it may be necessary to avoid losing the business you have. Most businesses that are built on an MRR model have to pay attention to that. Generally speaking, customer retention is regarded as important in most such organizations. The major losers in EU+US market seem to be start-ups, who can't get addresses and thus have fraction of the market size giving existing companies unfair competitive advantage, nearly impossible to overcome. I think at least the first several such startups will be able to get space out of the /10 reserved for transitional technologies to provide front-end proxies and such for their services. Startup eye-ball ISPs may be at a greater disadvantage for a relatively short period of time as they will essentially have to deploy an IPv6 customer network along side a technology such as NAT64 or DS-LITE. However, the more of these are created, the more pressure there is for content and service providers to provide native IPv6 availability of their content and services, so, I think it will rapidly solve itself on that level. I would personally hope that EU+US would mandate that residential ISP add IPv6 to their subscribers by default, without possibility to opt-out in n years time. Hopefully n would be no more than 3. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. It simply doesn't map to the regulatory framework and culture prevalent in the US at this time. Owen
Re: IP4 Space
On Mar 7, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Shon Elliott wrote: My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it. I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four number dotted quad was easy to remember, an IPv6 address.. not so much. I wished they had made that a little easier when they were drafting up the protocol specs. basically, you need technical knowledge to even understand how the IP address is split up. I wished ARIN would waive the fee for service provider's first block of IPv6 as well. It would help make the dual stack deployment easier. I'm not sure how you think they could have. 128 bits is a really big number no matter how you represent it. For the most part, attempting to remember IP addresses of either form is error-prone and ill-advised. It's actually much easier to understand how an IPv6 address should be split up than an IPv4 address. The rules are virtually identical to IPv4, and the recommendations are even easier to understand than the IPv4 rules. Rule: A netmask is expressed as a / followed by the number of contiguous bits at the MSB end of the number which comprise the network number. The remaining bits at the LSB end of the number comprise the host address. (Hint: This is the same rule as modern IPv4 and has largely the same mapping: For example, a /8 is 0xff00 in IPv4 and 0xff00 in IPv6. (notice just more 0s to the right of the 0xff) ) Recommendations: End networks containing hosts should be /64. End-User organizations of very small size should receive a /56, or, on request, a /48. End-User organizations which are not very small should receive a /48, or, larger with appropriate justification. ISPs and LIRs should receive a /32, or, larger with appropriate justification. Because IPv6 addresses are always represented in hex, it is even easier to match up subnets to digits. Each hex digit is exactly 4 bits. (In IPv4, every 1, 2, or 3 digits, separated by a . was 8 bits and required a not insignificant amount of mental arithmetic to match an IP address and netmask to a prefix) IPv6 netmasks which do not line up with nibble boundaries still require some mental arithmetic, but, it is much much easier: Mask Value (MV) = /xx XX = Mask match portion of address. yy... = Remainder of 64 MSb of address. zz... = Host portion of /64 MV % 4 Mapping: 0 Full digit. /0 = default 1 First bit /1 = [0-7]yyy::::::: or [8-f]yyy::::::: 2 Two bits/2 = [0-3], [4-7], [8-b], or [c-f]... 3 Three bits /3 = [0-1], [2-3], [4-5], [6-7], [8-9], [a-b], [c-d], or [e-f]... 0 Full digit /4 = Xyyy::::::: 1 First bit /5 = X[0-7]yy::::::: or X[8-f]yy::::::: 2 Two bits/6 = X[0-3]yy, X[4-7]yy, X[8-b]yy, or X[c-f]yy... etc. Personally, I recommend the KISS approach and keeping the boundaries aligned to the nibble wherever possible (/4, /8, /12, /16...) I know IPv4 is running out. I understand the situation. I just wished they had put a little more thought into the user experience side of the addressing. You can all flog me now if you want. I expect it. I'm green on IPv6. I would love the education if I am wrong. I'm not trying to flog you. I'm trying to help you. If you have more questions, feel free to email me off-list. Owen -S Mark Newton wrote: On 06/03/2010, at 1:06 AM, David Conrad wrote: Mark, On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote: On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote: When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space will quickly become worth the effort. Only to the extent that the cost of IPv6 migration exceeds the cost of recovering space. You're remembering to include the cost of migrating both sides, for all combinations of sides interested in communicating, right? In some cases, that cost for one of those sides will be quite high. Yes, but I only need to pay the cost of my side. There's sure to be an upper-bound on the cost of v4 space, limited by the magnitude of effort required to do whatever you want to do without v4. The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want without IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, and as such, allocated-but-not-efficiently-used addresses will likely become worth the effort to reclaim. That isn't a likely outcome, though. We'll never need to do without IPv4, it'll always be available, just in a SP-NATted form which doesn't work very well. Continuing to put up with that state of affairs comes with its own set of costs
Re: Alcatel-Lucent
--- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: So my experience so far has been good product, good company, needs a real attitude adjustment in the support department. - ditto that! scott
