Mailing List Archive

1 2 3 4  View All
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 30/Nov/19 18:45, Ca By wrote:

>
>
> Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet.  Scale shops
> have v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away,
> and that makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water
> in ipv4.

Well, China have scale, but perhaps Google's data sets aren't reliable
in that region.

Mark.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 1/Dec/19 02:54, Brandon Martin wrote:

> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very usable (/48 to /52 for each IPv4) amount of IPv6? And if you don't need a "comparable" amount of IPv6, presumably you aren't using all your legacy IPv4 and can sell off part of its presumably huge allocation to get some funds.

AFRINIC offered IPv6 /32's for free for every member that paid for their
IPv4.

Not sure if they still do, but my annual bill does mention that amount
of IPv6 space we have.

Mark.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources for $150/year in registration fees?

I suppose it’s not impossible, but I’m wondering how they afford the other expenses associated with maintaining such a network.

Owen


> On Nov 30, 2019, at 09:00 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an allocation from the 44 net)
>
> Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the funds to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation.
>
> We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because early adopters are still sometimes early adopters.
>
> But you’re right, what could have been supported on a volunteer basis is now a profit center. Especially for IPv6, which is once-and-done if sized properly.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:29 PM <bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote:
>
> If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
> would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
> have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
> trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.
>
> But the RIRs can't live on that.
>
> We have put them under the management of a group of five organizations
> which are very dependent on the income from block allocations and no
> doubt were hoping IPv6 allocations would be a boon since there will be
> very little if any income growth from future IPv4 block allocations.
>
> Worse, once acquired an IPv6 block has so many billions of addresses
> very few if any would ever need another allocation so it would hardly
> act as a loss leader.
>
> I realize many still would not deploy IPv6 for various reasons such as
> their equipment doesn't support it or they don't have the in-house
> expertise to support it, etc tho I can't think of much other etc, a
> few points of resistance do come up.
>
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/>
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
I get $500, not $150, when I read the price list.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:

> You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient
> complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources
> for $150/year in registration fees?
>
> I suppose it’s not impossible, but I’m wondering how they afford the other
> expenses associated with maintaining such a network.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 09:00 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an
> allocation from the 44 net)
>
> Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the
> funds to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation.
>
> We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because
> early adopters are still sometimes early adopters.
>
> But you’re right, what could have been supported on a volunteer basis is
> now a profit center. Especially for IPv6, which is once-and-done if sized
> properly.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:29 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
>> would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
>> have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
>> trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.
>>
>> But the RIRs can't live on that.
>>
>> We have put them under the management of a group of five organizations
>> which are very dependent on the income from block allocations and no
>> doubt were hoping IPv6 allocations would be a boon since there will be
>> very little if any income growth from future IPv4 block allocations.
>>
>> Worse, once acquired an IPv6 block has so many billions of addresses
>> very few if any would ever need another allocation so it would hardly
>> act as a loss leader.
>>
>> I realize many still would not deploy IPv6 for various reasons such as
>> their equipment doesn't support it or they don't have the in-house
>> expertise to support it, etc tho I can't think of much other etc, a
>> few points of resistance do come up.
>>
>> --
>> -Barry Shein
>>
>> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com |
>> http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/>
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
>> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>>
>
>
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
End Users
End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and not for distribution to external users of their Internet services.

End Users with Registration Services Plan
End users may opt to pay for ARIN registration services on the same schedule as ISPs detailed above by subscribing to a Registration Services Plan. End users who do so receive additional services, including ARIN Membership and the ability to report reassignment information and/or provide utilization data via the Shared Whois Project (SWIP). Organizations that choose to convert to the Registration Services Plan will be evaluated as an ISP from a policy perspective when requesting future Internet number resources from ARIN. The applicable annual Registration Services Plan will be invoiced annually based on the organization resources in the ARIN registry.

End Users Paying Per Resource
End-user customers who do not have a Registration Services Plan pay fees per number resource, as specified below:

IPv4 / IPv6 Number Resources

Initial

An organization will be assessed an initial fee for each new IPv4, IPv6, or experimental address assignment based on the service category approved for them by Registration Services. After an assignment has been approved, ARIN will invoice for payment. Payment and the executed Registration Services Agreement (RSA) must be received before resources are issued.

Annual

An organization’s annual fee is due each year at the end of their anniversary month (the month of their initial assignment). Annual maintenance fees are $150 USD for each IPv4 address block, $150 USD for each IPv6 address block, and $150 USD for each ASN assigned to the organization.

Note: ARIN Membership is also available to end-user customers who pay fees on a per resource basis.

https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/#ipv4-ipv6-number-resources


> On 2 Dec 2019, at 12:23, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> I get $500, not $150, when I read the price list.
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources for $150/year in registration fees?
>
> I suppose it’s not impossible, but I’m wondering how they afford the other expenses associated with maintaining such a network.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 09:00 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>>
>> I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an allocation from the 44 net)
>>
>> Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the funds to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation.
>>
>> We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because early adopters are still sometimes early adopters.
>>
>> But you’re right, what could have been supported on a volunteer basis is now a profit center. Especially for IPv6, which is once-and-done if sized properly.
>>
>> Matthew Kaufman
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:29 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
>> would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
>> have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
>> trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.
>>
>> But the RIRs can't live on that.
>>
>> We have put them under the management of a group of five organizations
>> which are very dependent on the income from block allocations and no
>> doubt were hoping IPv6 allocations would be a boon since there will be
>> very little if any income growth from future IPv4 block allocations.
>>
>> Worse, once acquired an IPv6 block has so many billions of addresses
>> very few if any would ever need another allocation so it would hardly
>> act as a loss leader.
>>
>> I realize many still would not deploy IPv6 for various reasons such as
>> their equipment doesn't support it or they don't have the in-house
>> expertise to support it, etc tho I can't think of much other etc, a
>> few points of resistance do come up.
>>
>> --
>> -Barry Shein
>>
>> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
>> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 12/1/19 8:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> End Users
> End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and not for distribution to external users of their Internet services.

I guess it's possible that these networks would be considered end users,
but I get the impression that they would probably be classified as ISPs,
and then the fee would indeed be $500/yr for 2X-Small. A bit ridiculous
for IPv6-only, but still probably approaching noise in the budget for a
service provider who has a legacy allocation unless they have remained
tiny somehow (in which case, sell off some of that IP space you have and
pay your $500/yr for the next decade or so).

FWIW, if you need it, you should also be immediately eligible for a /24
for IPv6 deployment and transition tech at no additional cost since your
legacy space wouldn't be considered by ARIN unless you specifically
brought it under their purview AFAIK. Even if you don't need the space,
per se, there are often times where it's useful to have a disjoint /24
e.g. for traffic engineering, anycast, DNS servers, etc. All depends on
how much legacy space you have, I guess. I'm also somewhat hopeful
that, as those allocations all come from a known block, the various
content networks will recognize them as being likely to house the
inevitable (eventually) CGN sources, but I won't hold my breath.

I guess you also get to vote in ARIN elections and comment on policy
matters as a member, if that matters to you.

--
Brandon Martin
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
This is that reasoning that because this particular shiny bauble is
laying right here on the table then that's the whole picture.

More likely if some of them decided to sell that IPv4 block they'd
catch up on the rent or cut deductibles on the health care plan or or
get rid of some of that 100mb ethernet or something.

IPv6 would be way, way down on that list.

That's how small businesses run.

On November 30, 2019 at 19:54 lists.nanog@monmotha.net (Brandon Martin) wrote:
> On 11/30/19 4:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6 blocks?
>
> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very usable (/48 to /52 for each IPv4) amount of IPv6? And if you don't need a "comparable" amount of IPv6, presumably you aren't using all your legacy IPv4 and can sell off part of its presumably huge allocation to get some funds.
> --
> Brandon Martin

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:58 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net>
wrote:

> Does Verizon still own/manage ANY of their Fios territories? I thought it
> was all sold off to Frontier at this point. It certainly all is, along
> with all their legacy LEC territories not having FTTx and having some form
> of DSL, around here. The latter DSL offerings are usually pretty
> hilarious. It's mostly run out of the CO or existing RTUs from the POTS
> era. I can't imagine they have a ton of subscribers outside of areas with
> literally no other wireline options, and I'm guessing a lot of that
> infrastructure hasn't been touched in a decade-plus.
>
> Is Frontier-managed Fios included in those numbers regardless, or are they
> separate like I'd expect them to be?
>

I don't think those numbers include wireline territories that were
transferred from Verizon to Frontier, but in my area (western
Pennsylvania), Fios service is provided by Verizon.

Verizon hasn't updated their IPv6 resource site since at least 2012. It
still includes a subtle but significant typo. A /56 does not give you "56
LANs"....

Requests for updates from front-line customer service go into a black hole,
as do sidebar questions to our Verizon account team at $dayjob.

jms
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On 02/12/2019 16:00, nanog-request@nanog.org wrote:
> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
> [...]
> On 1/Dec/19 02:54, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
>> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very usable (/48 to /52 for each IPv4) amount of IPv6? And if you don't need a "comparable" amount of IPv6, presumably you aren't using all your legacy IPv4 and can sell off part of its presumably huge allocation to get some funds.
>
> AFRINIC offered IPv6 /32's for free for every member that paid for their
> IPv4.
>
> Not sure if they still do, but my annual bill does mention that amount
> of IPv6 space we have.


still accurate.
https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource , section
3.1-"For existing members".
It is said "No additional fees as a result of the issued IPv6 prefix
will apply."


Section 3.2. new IPv6-only members get discounts over 3 years

--
Willy Manga
@ongolaboy
https://ongola.blogspot.com/
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
That’s a one-time fee for end-users (and it can be as low as $250 unless you need a /40 or more).

If you’re an ISP, then yes, it’s $500 per year if you need a /40 or more (or as little as $250 if you can
get buy on less than a /40).

Owen


> On Dec 1, 2019, at 17:23 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> I get $500, not $150, when I read the price list.
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
> You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources for $150/year in registration fees?
>
> I suppose it’s not impossible, but I’m wondering how they afford the other expenses associated with maintaining such a network.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 09:00 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at <mailto:matthew@matthew.at>> wrote:
>>
>> I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an allocation from the 44 net)
>>
>> Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the funds to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation.
>>
>> We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because early adopters are still sometimes early adopters.
>>
>> But you’re right, what could have been supported on a volunteer basis is now a profit center. Especially for IPv6, which is once-and-done if sized properly.
>>
>> Matthew Kaufman
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:29 PM <bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote:
>>
>> If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
>> would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
>> have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
>> trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.
>>
>> But the RIRs can't live on that.
>>
>> We have put them under the management of a group of five organizations
>> which are very dependent on the income from block allocations and no
>> doubt were hoping IPv6 allocations would be a boon since there will be
>> very little if any income growth from future IPv4 block allocations.
>>
>> Worse, once acquired an IPv6 block has so many billions of addresses
>> very few if any would ever need another allocation so it would hardly
>> act as a loss leader.
>>
>> I realize many still would not deploy IPv6 for various reasons such as
>> their equipment doesn't support it or they don't have the in-house
>> expertise to support it, etc tho I can't think of much other etc, a
>> few points of resistance do come up.
>>
>> --
>> -Barry Shein
>>
>> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com <mailto:bzs@TheWorld.com> | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/>
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
>> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 18:05 , Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
>
> On 12/1/19 8:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> End Users
>> End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and not for distribution to external users of their Internet services.
>
> I guess it's possible that these networks would be considered end users, but I get the impression that they would probably be classified as ISPs, and then the fee would indeed be $500/yr for 2X-Small. A bit ridiculous for IPv6-only, but still probably approaching noise in the budget for a service provider who has a legacy allocation unless they have remained tiny somehow (in which case, sell off some of that IP space you have and pay your $500/yr for the next decade or so).
>
> FWIW, if you need it, you should also be immediately eligible for a /24 for IPv6 deployment and transition tech at no additional cost since your legacy space wouldn't be considered by ARIN unless you specifically brought it under their purview AFAIK. Even if you don't need the space, per se, there are often times where it's useful to have a disjoint /24 e.g. for traffic engineering, anycast, DNS servers, etc. All depends on how much legacy space you have, I guess. I'm also somewhat hopeful that, as those allocations all come from a known block, the various content networks will recognize them as being likely to house the inevitable (eventually) CGN sources, but I won't hold my breath.

I would like to clarify that the idea of Legacy “Space” i somewhat fallacious. In reality there are only legacy registrations. Once the registration is brought under an RSA (or LRSA) either by the original holder, or through the transfer process, the resulting registration loses its “Legacy” status. In the case of LRSA, there are some additional rights afforded to the original holder, but in the event of a subsequent transfer, that space would move to a standard RSA.

ARIN will consider all space held by an organization, whether legacy or otherwise in computing need. However, to the best of my knowledge, need under a section 4.10 request is computed independent of other IPv4 holdings. As such, I believe that the first /24 issued to an organization under section 4.10 would not consider their existing IPv4 holdings. Subsequent 4.10 requests are evaluated based on the utilization of the previous 4.10 space for its intended purpose.

> I guess you also get to vote in ARIN elections and comment on policy matters as a member, if that matters to you.

Membership is not required to comment on policy matters. Anyone with an email address may comment on policy matters simply by subscribing to and participating in the ARIN public policy mailing list.

Membership is required to vote in ARIN elections for the Advisory Council and the Board of Trustees.

Owen
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:

> > I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
> > organizations deploying dual-stack
>
> I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.

> If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.

And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?

A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2
address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>
>>> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
>>> organizations deploying dual-stack
>>
>> I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
>
>> If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
>
> And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
>
> A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2
> address allocations, a v4 and a v6.

Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own
at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to
want to have their own global IPv4 addresses.

We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions
of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS.
CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these
are shared addresses.
VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when
the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation.
Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that.
Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4
addresses.

Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of
> their own at all?

if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail
servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area.

randy
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>>
>>>> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
>>>> organizations deploying dual-stack
>>>
>>> I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
>>
>>> If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
>>
>> And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
>>
>> A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2
>> address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
>
> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own
> at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to
> want to have their own global IPv4 addresses.
>
> We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions
> of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS.
> CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these
> are shared addresses.
> VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when
> the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation.
> Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that.
> Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4
> addresses.

Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using
somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though....

--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:12:27 +1100, Mark Andrews said:

> Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that.
> Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4
> addresses.

Are you seriously trying to say "If you're a new company, there's no plausible
reason for you to need your own IPv4 addresses, because there's no reason for
you to have your own mail servers or web servers"?

Because if it *were* true that people don't need v4 addresses so they can dual-stack,
we wouldn't have a healthy market buying and selling v4 address space.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>>>
>>>>> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
>>>>> organizations deploying dual-stack
>>>>
>>>> I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
>>>
>>>> If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
>>>
>>> And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
>>>
>>> A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2
>>> address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
>>
>> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own
>> at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to
>> want to have their own global IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions
>> of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS.
>> CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these
>> are shared addresses.
>> VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when
>> the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation.
>> Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that.
>> Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4
>> addresses.
>
> Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using
> somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though…

Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using
someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell
nothing.

Just because enterprises that established themselves in a IPv4-only world did
it one way. It doesn’t mean that enterprises establishing themselves in a IPv4 /
IPv6 world need to follow that model.

Mark

> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said:

> Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using
> someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell
> nothing.

Other than the fact that a /24 is being advertised out of one AS and it's part of
some other AS's /14 and looks suspiciously like a hijack? And we currently don't
deal well with identifying and preventing true hijacks and mess up false positives
a lot of the time?
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 09:51, Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
>
>> Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using
>> someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell
>> nothing.
>
> Other than the fact that a /24 is being advertised out of one AS and it's part of
> some other AS's /14 and looks suspiciously like a hijack? And we currently don't
> deal well with identifying and preventing true hijacks and mess up false positives
> a lot of the time?

I’m curious if you actually read the example of use of another’s IPv4 address before
starting talking about hijacking addresses?

Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:58:59 -0800, FREDERICK BAKER said:

> I think he is saying that companies like Reliance JIO have started with a /22
> of IPv4 and a /32 (or more) of IPv6,

As I said - you need IPv4 space to dual-stack. How does Reliance do this
without any v4 address space?
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> On Dec 3, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:58:59 -0800, FREDERICK BAKER said:
>
>> I think he is saying that companies like Reliance JIO have started with a /22
>> of IPv4 and a /32 (or more) of IPv6,
>
> As I said - you need IPv4 space to dual-stack. How does Reliance do this
> without any v4 address space?

They have a very small amount, and do CGN, the same as anyone else. If that's what you took away from the APNIC measurements, you missed the story, though.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 3/12/19 17:47, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>> On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
>>>>>> organizations deploying dual-stack
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
>>>>
>>>>> If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
>>>>
>>>> And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there?
>>>>
>>>> A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2
>>>> address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
>>>
>>> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of their own
>>> at all? In most cases they don’t. It’s only inertia that is causing people to
>>> want to have their own global IPv4 addresses.
>>>
>>> We have IPv4 as a service which gives on demand shared IPv4 addresses. Millions
>>> of people reach the IPv4 Internet every day using IPv4AAS.
>>> CDNs are dual stack and provide the IPv4 presence on the net. These days these
>>> are shared addresses.
>>> VPNs run over IPv6 and they can in turn run over IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels when
>>> the remote doesn’t support native IPv6. Its just another level on encapsulation.
>>> Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for that.
>>> Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your own IPv4
>>> addresses.
>>
>> Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using
>> somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though…
>
> Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using
> someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell
> nothing.

Security? Privacy?

It may or may not be a concern for you. But there are implications in
doing so.



> Just because enterprises that established themselves in a IPv4-only world did
> it one way. It doesn’t mean that enterprises establishing themselves in a IPv4 /
> IPv6 world need to follow that model.

As long as you do analyze the implications and trade-offs...


--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 12/3/19 10:04 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using
> somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though....

OTOH, many many organizations, especially outside of service providers,
in fact DO such a thing. I'd suspect your average mid-size business
these days really in fact does not "need" any IPv4 addresses to conduct
their ordinary and even many extraordinary operations.

As long as you can make IPv4 HTTP/HTTPS destinations work to handle the
long tail of non-IPv6 web destinations out there, I bet most people
wouldn't even notice, and the only reason the IT folks would notice
would be during testing/troubleshooting or the fact that their machine
suspiciously has no RFC1918 nor public IPv4 address configured on it.

Most organizations do indeed outsource most of their IT functions in one
way or another, and it's pretty easy these days to pick outsourcing
partners for most common business needs that are indeed natively
IPv6-enabled. The remainder probably run over HTTP/HTTPS, anyway, and
are easily translatable at the service provider level.

I'd certainly not (yet) say that that's a recommended configuration, but
I suspect it would often work. I certainly have IPv6-only testbeds.
There's a few groaners usually, but a surprisingly large amount of stuff
"just works".
--
Brandon Martin
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> > Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of
> > their own at all?
>
> if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail
> servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area.
>
> randy
>

...!6to4mx!m2xenix!randy

Aled
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
that would be a throwback, if my MTA supported full-length bangpaths.

On 19-12-04 01 h 56, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com
> <mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
>
> > Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4
> addresses of
> > their own at all?
>
> if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail
> servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area.
>
> randy
>
>
> ...!6to4mx!m2xenix!randy
>
> Aled

1 2 3 4  View All