I'd like to thank Owen for explaning his point of view with such clarity and I'd like to concur with him by rephrasing in my own words (most of this has already been said by others thought).
Taking the objections in order, again:
1. Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6. It only extends the life of the IPv4 network.
Indeed. This affirmation is entirely true IMHO. However the stone-cold reality is that IPv6 is not yet ready despite huge multi-years efforts by the community and many service providers (speaking by experience here). The huge IPv4-only installed base and the lack of IPv6 support by vendors can't be ignored wherever the blame is put.
2. If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918 address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by the draft.
Of course. Mark has pointed it out already, we don't need the prohibition to be *enforced*, only to have it *written* in the document. If a provider's client complains of overlap, then the burden of renumbering is on him, not on the ISP or anybody else.
3. If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request still more special-use address space.
I doubt "others", whoever they are, will have 1) sufficient justification and 2) time to do so.
4. Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future.
Applications will break anyway with squat space or multiple overlapping RFC1918 space. As Owen and others pointed out, at least with a known prefix it can be fixed in a consistent manner.
CGN will happen and is already happening now because it's the only rational way to keep a service provider business running, whether one like it or not. Dedicated addressing space will only make this deployment cleaner than if it's done with squat space.
In my very humble opinion, draft Weil is definitely the lesser of to evils here. Just as an example, what suspiciously looks like squat space can be seen now (*>i47.154.0.0/16 ... 3561 701 9929 4808 4808 i). At least with a dedicated prefix it can be properly filtered and blackholed.
These were my 2 (Canadian) cents.
JF Tremblay
Long time IPv6 enthusiast and Sr IPv6 Engineer at Videotron
(The opinions contained here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my $employer or any other affiliation)
I strongly support both of these drafts.
Allocation of the /10 will have only minimal negative impacts on the community, if any.
Almost all of the impacts raised in the objections to draft weil will occur whether or not
draft weil is moved to BCP status. The difference is that with draft weil in place, most of
them can actually be mitigated whereas no such mitigation will be possible without
draft weil.
Delaying draft weil is, in this case, roughly equivalent to refusing it because operators
are going to have to start implementing CGN and other IPv4 exhaustion coping
mechanisms whether the IETF is ready or not.
The objections listed in Ron's sending this to IESG ballot are:
- Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6. It only extends the life of the IPv4 network.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918 address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by the draft.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request still more special-use address space.
- Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future.
Taking each objection in order:
- Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6. It only extends the life of the IPv4 network.
The first part of this statement is true. The second half is not an entirely accurate
characterization. What this /10 will do is enable carriers and ISPs to provide services
to end users in a consistent manner that vendors can adapt to. Absent this shared
transition space, the uses for this space will not magically disappear and all of the
problems described will still exist. The primary resulting difference will be that it
will consume more global unicast addresses and create more potential for collision
and other negative consequences while simultaneously removing all hope of
allowing vendors to provide mitigation in software.
I am one of the biggest IPv6 cheerleaders in the industry, but, I also have to work
within the framework of operational reality. We're going to run out of IPv4 before
everyone is ready, whether we like it or not. ISPs are going to have to cope with
some various forms of IPv4 services for their customers after exhaustion. No matter
what, this will be a bad situation. Failing to allocate this /10 will make it worse.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918 address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by the draft.
I'm not convinced this argument is true, but, it can be made about virtually any RFC
reserving space. Any special use or conventional allocation can be used in a manner
contrary to it's prescribed intent. Rejecting this request with strong support and definite
need from the operational community will not prevent misuse of address space, it will
create the inevitable increase in such misuse as providers are forced to scramble
to the use of "dark space", re-use of global unicast space, and other less than ideal
solutions for this purpose.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request still more special-use address space.
I just don't see this. Nobody made this objection to the Documentation prefixes. Nobody made this
objection to localhost getting a /8. Why is this special use request any more likely to encourage
more such requests than any other?
- Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future.
All of the applications that will break if providers use this space will also break if providers
use any of the following:
RFC-1918 that collides with the customers internal network.
Dark space
Recycled Global Unicast Space
Class E space
The difference is that with this allocation, providers will all break in the same consistent
way and vendors can mitigate the breakage through software upgrades in some (many)
cases. Without this allocation, providers will use some random mixture of all of the above
in an uncoordinated and undefined way, making it impossible for vendors to provide any
mitigation to such breakage.
Respectfully Submitted,
Owen DeLong
Co-author draft-bdgks
IPv6 Evangelist
Director Professional Services
Hurricane Electric
Member, ARIN Advisory Council
The opinions contained here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, ARIN, or the ARIN Advisory Council.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf