[LINK] Fwd: Expert Panel: The Seven Stages of IPv6 Adoption
kauer at biplane.com.au
Fri Mar 27 11:49:58 EST 2009
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 16:35 +0000, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> responsibility. Presuming that IP address 'abuse' might naturally
> increase over time, and that our ISPs whom are assigned these big
> new numbers, and thus 'responsible' for them might perhaps become
> somewhat 'lax' in their administration (understandable, given the
> numbers we are talking) do you, and others Linkers think that our
> present accountability tool ie apnic whois (which currently works
> reasonably well) will be up to this task? As will be our Au ISPs?
The number of addresses is pretty much irrelevant to issues of good
If there's an administration problem, it is the current tendency to hand
out vast number of addresses where a very few are needed. Even a huge
address range like IPv6 can disappear quickly if it is poorly
distributed - which is exactly what happened with IPv4, though better
distribution would only have delayed it's demise. There are huge tracts
of IPv4 address space that are still not used at all, and we are heading
the same way with IPv6 - by design, this time.
I'm disappointed, for example, that the SLAAC prefix is /64 - 18
billion billion addresses in the smallest SLAAC subnet! I realise it had
to do with the fact that the MAC addresses of hosts were to be
accommodated (that's 48 bits right there) but I feel some other
algorithm could have been devised that allowed more parsimonious
> With such big numbers one can well imagine it might become normal
> for a feeling of, "well we've got so many, we can't look after em
> all, not like we used to" enter into future ISP thinking.
Er - "look after them"? They aren't chickens, they're numbers. I really
don't see what you mean here. Unless you mean the issue of over-generous
> One can
> well understand that happening .. on the plentiful-equals-neglect
> scenario. It'd be normal human nature to think like that, perhaps.
Yes - and the difficulty that may arise out of that is, as noted above,
profligacy leading to another address shortage. I don't see many other
issues, could you be more specific?
> So, do you, or any Linker imagine this might become a problem for
> orderly and responsible Au net housekeeping?
No - no more than it is for IPv4 already. I wonder what you imagine "net
housekeeping" to be, and what roles you see ISPs playing.
> Like any market when
> huge new resources become available, the price per unit drops. So
> it's just possible that our good standards of ISP caretaking, and
> indeed just care in general, will decline. Is this a concern?
ISP caretaking? Again, please be more specific.
I just don't see where you are coming from on this. So I guess my answer
However, we don't really know where an abundance of addresses (and the
likley disappearance of NAT as a result) will lead. It seems reasonable
to suppose that address abundance will lead to a boom in innovation, and
who knows what will arise and what difficulties and opportunities it
> if not, should it be? Maybe ISPs may need tax-breaks etc to cope?
ISPs (and to a lesser extent carriers) have for the most part ignored
the need for IPv6, which has been written on the wall in flaming
letters of ever-increasing font size for ten years or more.
> If Fred Public can be assigned thousands of addresses, it will be
> very much easier to 'play up' with some them and be irresponsible.
Why? Describe how.
> I can't imagine that ISPs will be able to afford, with dirt cheap
> address, to cope as well as they currently do.
Again, why? Describe *why* this should be so.
> Should we look at
> this? Perhaps our ISPs should be paid to be 'sherrifs' of our new
> and vast, digital landscapes they will be responsible for, on the
> behalf of our Australian government? Maybe they should? It's our
> 'dot au' territory, and needs good 'policing' same as 'real' land.
Domain names and IP addresses are two totally different issues. Again,
please describe an actual problem you see possibly arising.
> So, there seems a reasonable argument that our Au Gov PAY ISPs to
> provide any extensive new protective-services that will be needed,
> simply because it's a whole new, and immense, Australian teritory.
I see no argument in your words at all. You haven't described any
problems at all. You've just hinted at the possibility that there might
be some, without doing so much as even sketching their nature. You'll
have to do better than that if you want me to agree that my tax dollars
should go to ISPs.
> Eg, re IPv6 .. and whois .. Scott says, "For what it's worth, the
> registry I get my IPv6 network from has just (about two weeks ago)
> added the ability for users to 'block' their personal information
> from being displayed in whois. Previously (my registry) forced all
> users details to be available but due to complaints from many users
> they have changed this to show only basic details (&) not including
> email address/etc." (Link archives, Sat Jan 31 05:55:16 EST 2009)
If this is a problem at all, how is it any more of a problem with IPv6
in the picture? Be specific.
> Is this really the way we want our .au namespace to go?
The namespace and the IP address space are two completely different
> Can't help
> thinking our ISPs are going to need help, and there is an argument
> that our government should pick up the tab to manage a responsible
> Australian namespace.
I don't think you've made an argument for that, or indeed an argument
for anything much at all. Especially since you seem to confuse the IP
address space and the DNS namespace. Happy to discuss the issues, but
let's have a bit more clarity on what you see the problems to be.
 SLAAC = StateLess Address AutoConfiguration, the mechanism by
which an IPv6-capable host generates its own address.
 There are notable exceptions.
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)
GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
More information about the Link