[address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
>>> Considering that route aggregation is also an important goal of
>>> address policy, which IPv6 failed to address, we do need something
>>> else.
> 
>> That is a routing issue, not an addressing issue (which is what IPv6
>> solves), and it definitely is not a policy issue; as such it doesn't
>> below on this list anyway.
> 
> I'm afraid you confuse routability and aggregation.
> 
> As is written in RIPE NCC activity plan 2009
> 
> 	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap.html
> 
> 	To provide a fair, impartial distribution of Internet number
> 	resources guided by the RIPE community policies based on the
> 	goals of uniqueness, conservation and aggregation
> 
> aggregation is a goal of address policies.

Is that goal not reached anywhere then?

The community set the policy for giving out IPv6 PA and PI. Aggregation
is done on the size given out as a PI or PA block.

If you have problem with those policies then write up a new policy and
submit it, that is an appropriate thing to do on this list.

>> We'll talk further when you realize what happens when you are trying to
>> SSH from your cozy island vacation resort to your computer at home which
>> is behind several layers of NAT (at least the one at home, as your ISP
>> will still only give you 1 ISP-NATted address and thus also the ISP
>> NATted one, possibly a couple of extra as the ISP didn't get any
>> addresses either).
> 
> That is not a essential problem of NAT, because situation is no worse
> than with IPv6 ISPs not giving stable addresses to its customers.

DynDNS solves that problem perfectly fine.

> If you pay some ISP enough amount of money, the ISP will give you a
> fixed IPv6 address or a fixed IPv4 address+port.

This seems to be a CASH issue then, not a technical issue.
Technically this is already solved as there are SRV records in
existence, just not that many applications actually use them.

What is an issue though is that at one point there will not be any IPv4
addresses for new organizations to use. IPv6 then still keeps on
working. IPv4 won't, as you won't get a new address.

> A fundamental problem of NAT was that end hosts did not know its
> public address and that end hosts did not restrict source port
> numbers, both of which are solvable and were solved.

Indeed, IPv6 has been solving these issues for a long time already.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090724/9eb3660f/attachment.sig>