RE: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Earlier, Robin wrote:
% In order for IPv6 adoption to play a significant role in the
% reduction of the IPv4 routing scaling problem, several things
% would need to be true:

I disagree with the set of conclusions you reached about
which things "would need to be true".


% 1 - A significant number of new or existing end users (and their
%    ISPs) would need to run their Internet services using only
%    IPv6 addresses.

No.  A significant number of ISPs would need to support IPv6,
which either is true now or will be true before the IETF
processes could generate new standards based on a Routing
RG architectural recommendation.

There is no need for "only IPv6" above.

% 2 - With the possible exception of cell-phone end-users (who have
%    telco-provided operating systems and applications on their
%    devices) no ordinary end-users can be happy with their Internet
%    service unless it provides full connectivity to "all" other
%    Internet hosts, using the full range of applications which
%    other Internet users use.

Most Internet users don't use most applications/protocols.  In fact,
for the overwhelming majority of users, the set of application
protocols that need to work properly is quite limited.

Roughly speaking, this is the set that most users care about:
Email:  POP3, IMAP4, SMTP
Web:    HTTP, HTTPS
IM:       various proprietary IM protocols, Jabber

%    "All" means something close to 100%.  Maybe 99.9% or so -
%    certainly a very high proportion.

Disagree.  See above.

% 3 - Due to the use of a large variety of application protocols,
%    including many game protocols, those using UDP, P2P protocols
%    etc. it is entirely infeasible to construct any kind of gateway
%    or proxy system between IPv4 and IPv6.  Furthermore, the
%    protocols are not necessarily amenable to proxying etc. and
%    the applications generally have no facility for using a proxy.

I believe some of my competitors have already shipped boxes
that do provide very complete gateway/proxy capabilties
between IPv4 and IPv6.  As I have commented elsewhere
in the past, this has been the most requested IPv6 "feature"
that I've been hearing for several years now.  I assume my
counterparts at other suppliers are hearing similar messages.

One might also want to examine the sundry presentations
made in the past ~2 years by folks who work for COMCAST,
which is a large (US) cable-modem ISP.  They have said
they plan to buy such proxy/gateway boxes and deploy
them in their ISP network.

% 4 - Before point 2 could be achieved, a very large proportion
% of end-users would need to adopt IPv6 while they use IPv4.

Disagree.

% 5 - Before there is ubiquitous IPv6 adoption, all the impetus for
%    point 4 would need to come from some benefit that IPv6
%    provides for adopters, while they still have IPv4 addresses.

Disagree.  Also see above point about the existence today,
I believe, of IPv4::IPv6 bi-directional proxy/gateway boxes.

%    Currently, there are no such benefits.

Not running out of address space is a benefit today.

Having an improved IPv6 architecture that enabled a more
scalable routing system would be a significant benefit -- and
would incent ISPs to promote faster IPv6 adoption/transition
in the global marketplace.

% 6 - Therefore, if IPv6 adoption is to solve the IPv4 routing scaling
%     problem in any timeframe such as 2013 or whatever, then a number
%     of hurdles must be overcome, including:

To quote Rumsfeld,

    If one starts with a faulty premise, and then proceeds quite
    logically down a path of reasoning, one can hardly avoid
    reaching a faulty conclusion.

% 7 - To achieve this, there would have to be some unique
%  benefits for  end-users, since they will only adopt IPv6
%  if it provides immediate, direct, benefits.  The characteristics
%  of these benefits would need to include:

%    a - The benefit could only exist via IPv6 - otherwise, someone
%        will make it available via IPv4 and then no end-user would
%        have a reason to adopt IPv6.

Address space will remain a reason for folks to migrate to IPv6
over time, regardless of what is done here.

That noted, if the Routing RG were (hypothetically) to recommend
changes only to the IPv6 architecture, that would create a
separate reason for users to move to IPv6 (to gain the benefits
of such a hypothetical new architecture).

%    b - The benefit must exist in a dual-stack arrangement, since
%        until IPv6 adoption is ubiquitous, all end-users will need
%        and have IPv4 connectivity.  (Therefore it must be greater
%        than whatever burdens dual stack imposes on users,
%        administrators and ISPs.)

Not at all obvious to me.

%    c - The benefit must apply to the great majority of end-users.
%        If it only applies to some subset, such as those who are
%        interested in games, or real-time video, then this would
%        not attract the very high proportion of end-users (99.9%
%        etc.) which we need in order for any end-users to be able
%        to do without IPv4 address space.

Disagree.  See previous comments.

%    d - The benefit must be directly tied to the new RRG-suggested
%        protocols.  Otherwise people could get the benefits via
%        IPv6 without the new protocols.

Not necessarily, though again you present a possible rationale
for the Routing RG to propose an architecture only applicable
to IPv6.

%    e - The benefit must be compelling.  Yet it must be something
%        which is impossible with most Internet communication -
%        which will take place via IPv4 until the 99.9% IPv6 adoption
%        makes IPv4 unnecessary.

Disagree.

%    f - This benefit must exist from the very start, otherwise
%        no-one will adopt it.

Disagree.  The new approach must be incrementally deployable,
however.

%    g - The benefit cannot result from greater efficiency or
%        reliability, since IPv4's efficiency is greater than that
%       of IPv6, and because for the vast majority of end-users,
%        IPv4's reliability is perfectly adequate.

Disagree with all of the above.  Most commercial users are
not really happy with current levels of IP network reliability
or availability.  Something that would improve either/both
of those would be very interesting to commercial users.
Similarly, ISPs go to great lengths to avoid residential user
downtime (because fielding the inevitable trouble phone
calls is expensive, among other reasons).  So there is also
strong interest in improved reliability/availability among
residential users.

%    h - The benefit must therefore involve some new application
%        capability, or some new service capability, which physically
%        can't be done via IPv4 or via IPv6 without the RRG-suggested
%        new protocols.

Disagree.  Your premises were faulty, I believe, so the conclusions
are also faulty, unfortunately.


Yours,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg