[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OPSAWG] [Int-area] draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues (OPSAREA WG)

Hi Leo,

On 30/09/2009 19:28, Leo Vegoda wrote:

On 25/09/2009 6:45, "Matthew Ford"<ford at isoc.org>  wrote:

Section 3 - Where are these residential and corporate networks where
'peer to peer communication is not needed'?


It is not uncommon for some network operators to restrict the use of
peer-to-peer technologies either within their own network or across its
borders. In enterprises this is sometimes part of a security policy. For
instance some financial companies are required to record all incoming and
outgoing voice calls and so disallow peer-to-peer VoIP services.

In ISP networks there is sometimes a policy or technology that restricts
peer-to-peer technologies, whether for revenue protection reasons or
otherwise, forcing most IP traffic via proxies and caches. One example of
this is the image compression used by many cellular data networks.


Understood. So I think this text should be clarified, perhaps as follows:

Replace
'For instance, it is often technically feasible to use NAT or even multiple layers of NAT within the networks operated by residential users or corporations where peer to peer communication is not needed.' 

with
'For instance, it is often technically feasible to use NAT or even multiple layers of NAT within networks where peer-to-peer technologies are prohibited by fiat and where users cannot expect to use any unsupported services or applications.' 


Section 5.2 - I'm struggling to understand why it's 'likely' that there
will be networks consuming whole /8s in 12 month periods for private
addressing purposes. If there were networks with that much need for
private addressing, we'd have been hearing complaints about how net10 is
too small way before now, right?


We have both spoken to network operators who know that they have a need for
very large amounts of address space over short time frames but are sitting
on the requests for as long as possible. That being said, it is not unknown
for networks to be allocated whole /8s in one go. For instance, APNIC
allocated 126.0.0.0/8 to Softbank.
That was nearly five years ago. Have Softbank asked for more since? The text currently says it is 'likely' that there will be networks consuming whole /8s for private addressing in a 12 month period. 

I'd replace

'It is possible and even likely that a single
   network could consume a whole IPv4 /8 in a year. '

with

'Very large networks could consume multiple IPv4 /8s over time.'


Another example of a statement of need is the recent (now abandoned) APNIC
policy proposal (prop-058-v001) "Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address
space among LIRs".


This wording in section 4.1 on solving the problem with IPv6 is rather coy:
     "In some cases implementing a new network protocol on a very large
network takes more time than is available, based on network growth and
the proportion of private space that has already been used.  In these
cases, there is a call for additional private address space that can be
shared by all network operators."

Let's be clear about this:

'Some network operators are complaining today that they do not have time
to implement IPv6 on their network before they run out of private space.
These operators are calling for additional private address space to be
made available...'


We could change the wording to something more direct but I would personally
prefer not to use the word "complaining" as I don't think I have heard any
complaints, just proposals and concerns.


That's fair. How about
'Some network operators are concerned that they do not have sufficient time to implement IPv6 on their network before they run out of private space. These operators are calling for additional private address space to be made available...' 

Mat