[governance] Warning over Net address limits

Wed Oct 31 14:51:10 EDT 2007

This really requires serious discussion because we are talking here about
the Internet technical community's biggest failure. And most are still in
denial and just think that tomorrow we will roll out IPv6 and it will all be
solved. We wont - and the problem won't be solved.

Here is an article I posted to another list yesterday in reference to
another IPv6 summit promising with IPv6 increased security, more mobility,
next generation internet etc - IPv6 is none of these. Thanks to Geoff Huston
for his realistic analysis of what is going on!

I urge those organizing summits to get real about the benefits – IPv6
doesn’t help security, it actually creates greater mobility problems. (read
about multihoming). It doesn’t do much at all really except address the
numbering allocation issue.

Anyway Geoff explains it below in his report on NANOG. ( I like the Iraq war
comparison – “no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part
started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no
support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that]
victory will be next month” 

FYI,  IPv6 was released in 1995. It’s not the next generation Internet, and
we have to now be realistic about the fact it may never achieve widespread
adoption.

Ian Peter

BEGIN QUOTE

Just the IPv6 Facts Thanks 

IPv6 has been around for a very long time, and the marketing message has
been inflated with more and more hyperbole in response to industry’s
continuing disinterest in the topic. Randy Bush gave a presentation that
attempted to deflate some of the more excessive claims about the wonders of
IPv6, such as the rather preposterous claim that IPv6 increases battery life
in laptops! The premise behind the presentation is that the marketing hype
is counter-productive and its not actually assisting in the effort to deploy
IPv6, so its time to take a more grounded look at IPv6 and make an honest
assessment of what needs to be done. The current situation was characterised
as one with “no transition plan, [a] declared victory before the hard part
started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no
support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that]
victory will be next month” The problem is that IPv6 really is just IPv4
with more bits in the address space, and as a result it offers no real
feature benefit but because there are extra bits in the address header the
IPv6 packets are not backward compatible with the IPv4 installed base.
Transition to IPv6 will be hard, and the longer we wait the larger the
network; the longer we wait the fewer the number of IPv4 addresses left with
which to fuel the transition; the longer we wait the longer the transition
will take; the longer we wait the lower the commitment to make any
transition actually work. This is not a pleasant position to be in. 

The presentation advocated a level-headed assessment of the transition
problem spaces. We’ve managed to build a rather complex network over the
years and now wherever we may care to look there are instances of embedded
IPv4 functionality where there are no equivalent IPv6 functions. From
firewalls to load balancers, from mail filters to DLS modems, and from the
DNS to DHCP we seem to have a lot of work to do. The transition to IPv6 will
not be easy, nor quick. It will not eliminate NATs, nor will it alleviate
routing load. The address plan is relatively wasteful and is already looking
finite in size. There is no improvement in security. Incremental deployment
is not possible and this process will be protracted and expensive. 

The presentation looked a number of pragmatic issues involving this
transition, making the case that the time for “more features” in IPv6 was
over and it was now time to move attention to the supply chains and ensure
that IPv6 capability is well supported in products. Dual Stack should go as
far as possible to the customer edge, but even so there will be significant
use of Application Level Gateways. 

The presentation was certainly a change from the more enthusiastic and
overblown presentations that we’ve grown used to, and largely rejected as
being completely oversold as part of some deluded marketing frenzy
associated with IPv6. Hopefully this more critical assessment of the
situation will gather a receptive audience. Either that or we need to get
into IPv6 the Musical! 

END QUOTE

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info

-----Original Message-----
From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 October 2007 22:50
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Warning over Net address limits

Hi all
I was on vacation and missed you all.
Howoever, I just stumbled on this intriquing article on the BBC
Website and thought it worth sharing.
Are we heading for an armmagedon?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7068140.stm

Warning over net address limits

Vint Cerf is one of the founding fathers of the net
Internet Service Providers urgently need to roll out the next
generation of net addresses for online devices, internet pioneer Vint
Cerf has said.
Every device that goes online is allocated a unique IP address but the
pool of numbers is finite and due to run out around 2010.

A new system, called IPv6, has been awaiting roll out for 10 years.

Unless IPv6 is switched on in the coming years, some devices might not
be able to go online, Mr Cerf has warned.

Mr Cerf, who played a key role in the development of the protocols
which underpin the global net, said: "There is a risk of not being
able to get online."

He added: "The rate of consumption of available remaining IPv4 numbers
appears to be on track to run out in 2010/11."

Mr Cerf is about to step down as chairman of Icann, the body which
oversees the net, and is also Google's chief internet evangelist.

Potential shortage

The current system, called IPv4 provides four billion addresses but
the explosion in the number of devices which go online has led to the
potential shortage.

Although IPv6 was standardised 10 years ago it has not been rolled out
at speed.

While modern computers, servers, routers and other online devices are
able to use IPv6, internet service providers have yet to implement the
system.

"The reason they haven't - which is quite understandable - is that
customers haven't asked for it yet," said Mr Cerf, adding, "my job,
whether with my Icann hat on or not, is to persuade them to ask for
it.

  To be clear - if we finally exhaust the IPv4 pool it doesn't mean
the internet stops working

Vint Cerf

"If you don't ask for it, then when you most want it you won't have it."

IPv6 will create 340 trillion trillion trillion separate addresses,
enough to satisfy demand for decades to come.

"To be clear - if we finally exhaust the IPv4 pool it doesn't mean the
internet stops working. But people wanting an IPv4 address won't get
one.

"If there is an internet that does not support IPv6, not getting an
IPv4 address means not getting on the net."

He added: "The appreciation of the importance of getting IPv6 into
operation is very much more visible than before.

"I'm anticipating in 2008 a substantial increase of use of IPv6,
introduced in parallel with IPv4."

One complicating factor is that IPv6 and IPv4 are not compatible so
ISPs will have to run the two systems in parallel - adding to costs.

In Asia, governments in China, Korea and Japan have begun to lead roll
out of IPv6 and the European Union is reviewing methods to encourage
adoption.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7068140.stm

-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome

 Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 30/10/2007
18:26

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 30/10/2007
18:26

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance