John Kristoff wrote: > Tony, > > [ Posting this to the main ietf list as well as to you directly in case > you don't see it there. I realize this may be a controversial topic > that results in an endless thread of heated arguments, but I'll take > my chances since I'm curious to hear reasons for or against the draft. ] > > I must have missed it the first time it came around last year, but I > just saw your draft. I didn't find much discussion on the -00 version > so I hope this is the best place to discuss it. Can you clarify some > things for me? You say this: > > A number of organizations have expanded their autonomous private > networks to the point of exhausting the address space identified in > RFC 1918, in addition to the publicly routed space that has been > assigned to them. > > Are there public pointers to discussion about the requirement for new > private IPv4 space? I'd be particularly interested in specific > organizations that are having this problem if they have been willing > to come forward publicly. I was recruited to carry the message specifically because they do not want public criticism of their business practices. > I'd also be interested to hear what about > policies for acquiring space from the registries has been unreasonable. > Is it cost, address usage justification, both or something else? All of the above. The basic RIR argument is 'use private space for things that are not explicitly public'. This sounds like a reasonable position until the available private space becomes inadequate. Then if an organization still needs space, a large block of public space comes with hefty assumptions about cost recovery models that are not always valid. > > Your first example mentions /21 netblocks being allocated to each of > 5000 sites. Sounds like there is probably a lot going to waste, They got there when they found they had a bunch of discontiguous /24s and figured that cidr-izing them would be the best path forward. > but > I'm not that interested in criticizing the specific addressing plan of > the organization. Maybe you are not, but every time the general topic has come up there has been a small army chomping at the bit to tear into every last wasted address as an example of why this is not necessary. Unfortunately they do not have to deal with the operational and cost implications of squeezing every last drop of blood out of the address pool. > I know how much of pain it is to try to maximally > utilize address space. I am curious if the scale of this addressing > scenario is unique to the draft's example or if it is happening at a > "number of organizations" as seems to be implied. Well it was sent to the I-D editor several weeks ago, but I just left a Cisco office last week where I was having all kinds of routing problems because we are internally using 9.x (IBM) for an array of stuff because 1918 is just inadequate. This is not intended to say the practice is widespread, but nat is so insidious that there is no way to know how often that practice is occurring. It even shows up in organizations that understand the consequences. > > I guess one point of this is, if it's relatively uncommon except for > a small number of the very largest of organizations in the world, it > would seem to make more sense to exhaust all attempts at obtaining > public address space. There is a fundamental policy clash. Much as the IETF doesn't like to hear it there are people that really, really use private space for things they never intend to have publicly routed. That is all well and good as long as the protocol elite release sufficient address space for this use. We had it well under control in IPv6 until they realized that someone might actually use local addresses, and now the replacement ULA space is unable to be published as it is dragging out in an interminable discuss state. > Especially since if the organization does move > to IPv6, or simply just goes away, it's allocated address space can be > more easily reclaimed and redeployed than private address space could > be. It is long past time to get over any thoughts about reclaiming IPv4 space. It will never happen. No organization is going to give up any they have until we are well past the point where anyone cares about getting more. IPv4 has reached the point of success/failure and is a dead end protocol. The IETF just refuses to recognize the zombie for what it is and move on. I tried to get Harald to make closing all IPv4 work his last act but so far he has not taken up the opportunity. > > Finally, I'm also wondering if there is anything political driving this > solution that has not yet been put into the draft. For example, I can > imagine some well funded, large organization not wanting to have their > name on a specific public /8. You don't have to say you, just wink > blink twice for yes, once for no. :-) Joint authorship of the document is open to any organization willing to put their name on it. Given the history of the jackals lying in wait though I seriously doubt any will take the offer because their legal or public affairs departments will step in. As far as motivations, I see a problem that needs fixing and a way to solve it. If others have different motivations they are free to do so. There may be other ways to solve this like relaxing the criterion on use of public space, but it really doesn't matter in the long run because IPv4 is effectively finished. It is inadequate for serious large scale deployments even now, and as the number of network attached appliances continues to drive up the number of addresses in use per person the problem only becomes more acute. The only reason to bother with a 1918bis is to give these large networks sufficient time to move to IPv6 without doing the dumb thing we have done here at internally Cisco and just hijack someone else's public /8. Tony > > John _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf