[NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

[NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

[Dave Taht]

With as much humor and nuance as possible, I attempted to address some
of the backstory behind the 240/4 brouhaha in terms of why making sure
the internet had enough addresses for everyone was important.

https://hackaday.com/2024/02/14/floss-weekly-episode-769-10-more-internet/

(there are links to it on hackernews and elsewhere)

I have been deeply worried that in general, many recipients of BEAD
funding are intending to crutch along on IPv4 CGNAT and not put in
IPv6. The knowledge level with most that I have talked with is that
you just plug in a fiber and everything works, right? We just need to
run fiber - when the reality of the DSL deployment among others has a
lot of IPv4 addresses that need to move over, and that an internet
without direct connectivity is a poorer internet for everyone.

There are other nuances that I discuss, like the US government holding
onto 11 seemingly unused IPv4/8s, numerous other corporations also
holding onto a /8 of this asset, like Ford, and not using it (a /8 is
16 million IPv4 addresses at PDV of $30/ip), the role of the RIRs
moving forward, and the spectre of Amazon raising $1B/year from
renting the allocations they own to their customers. (The 240/4 "for
future use" problem is a relative distraction, honestly! but amazon's
use of it *all* does irk me, as I had intended that space be used for
all of humanity). Certainly by finally charging for their IPV4
addresses we will see some movement again towards IPv6, but that
gets me back into hoping that IPv6 IS deployed as part of BEAD to the
edges where it is most needed, and enough IPv4 remains available to
connect it also, without overloading CGNATs.

I would really like ip address exhaustion to be discussed at higher
levels in the government, not just as a network neutrality issue
(CGNATs make p2p vpns and gaming more difficult, among other things).
How could that be accomplished?


-- 
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:

> renting the allocations they own to their customers. (The 240/4 "for
> future use" problem is a relative distraction, honestly! but amazon's
> use of it *all* does irk me, as I had intended that space be used for
> all of humanity). Certainly by finally charging for their IPV4

The fact that it's now used internally in places, is yet another reason it 
will never show up in the global routing table.

Turning 240/4 into something usable on the wider Internet is a futile 
fight. It's however good for internal use as IPv4 already often needs 
translation boxes to talk to the global Internet (DFZ). So the work 
already done on making end systems able to use 240/4 is fine, but it also 
meant it's now used for internal things. So the fight should be to make it 
into proper RFC1918 style addresses for internal use so everybody agrees 
what's going on.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

[Dave Taht]

Dear Mike:

I am going to flat out refuse to discuss the ultimate use of the 6% of
the internet's "future" allocations here, today, in light of the other
issues I raised in the podcast that I think are more important, that I
hope people will take a timeout to think about. This tool, showing the
mis-allocated ipv4 address map, is very enlightening, for the newer
persons here:

https://map.bgp.tools/

It is kind of similar to the FCC wireless spectrum map. I used to keep
a copy of that on my wall with a tiny circle and arrow pointing at the
paltry 2.4ghz allocation and all the great things we did with it. IP
space is a similar problem.

In that tool you can zoom in on tons of empty space, controlled by
entities that do not care. I pushed hard during the runup to bead's
challenge process to not only do speedtests but map the cybergeography
and ipv6 available between ISPs, and to date, failed. I strongly agree
that rather than pursuing the 240 option that more of these more well
defined spaces be made available for public use. Somehow.

...

As for more and more CGNAT vs ipv6, I am reminded of an analogy why
direct addressing helps. My postal address in nicaragua, used to be

1 block contiguous east of hotel joxi,
San Juan Del Sur
Nicaragua

Which is kind of analogous to how regular NAT works today.

CGNAT is more like:

go 22 miles west of Rivas, Nicaragua, on one of the 32000 roads
(ports) if available
Take a left turn at the main stop light
go 3 blocks
go south 1 block to Hotel Joxi (ask the desk if they have any ports
available for NAT too)
go east 1 block
knock on the door to see if anyone is home
deliver the packet

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:20 AM Mikael Abrahamsson via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:
>
> > renting the allocations they own to their customers. (The 240/4 "for
> > future use" problem is a relative distraction, honestly! but amazon's
> > use of it *all* does irk me, as I had intended that space be used for
> > all of humanity). Certainly by finally charging for their IPV4
>
> The fact that it's now used internally in places, is yet another reason it
> will never show up in the global routing table.
>
> Turning 240/4 into something usable on the wider Internet is a futile
> fight. It's however good for internal use as IPv4 already often needs
> translation boxes to talk to the global Internet (DFZ). So the work
> already done on making end systems able to use 240/4 is fine, but it also
> meant it's now used for internal things. So the fight should be to make it
> into proper RFC1918 style addresses for internal use so everybody agrees
> what's going on.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain



-- 
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

[Christopher Hawker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1951 bytes --]

Not moving 240/4 into publicly-allocatable space just because a few select organisations are squatting on and using it as RFC1918 space (even though it's marked as Future Use) completely goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development. Big tech can't dictate what we do with IP space just to appease their shareholders.

We all know Bezos got enough dollars (and IP addresses) in his pocket. He don't need any more.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

________________________________
From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Mikael Abrahamsson via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:19 AM
To: Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:

> renting the allocations they own to their customers. (The 240/4 "for
> future use" problem is a relative distraction, honestly! but amazon's
> use of it *all* does irk me, as I had intended that space be used for
> all of humanity). Certainly by finally charging for their IPV4

The fact that it's now used internally in places, is yet another reason it
will never show up in the global routing table.

Turning 240/4 into something usable on the wider Internet is a futile
fight. It's however good for internal use as IPv4 already often needs
translation boxes to talk to the global Internet (DFZ). So the work
already done on making end systems able to use 240/4 is fine, but it also
meant it's now used for internal things. So the fight should be to make it
into proper RFC1918 style addresses for internal use so everybody agrees
what's going on.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4101 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

[Christopher Hawker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1949 bytes --]

Not moving 240/4 into publicly-allocatable space just because a few select organisations are squatting on and using it as RFC1918 space (even though it's marked as Future Use) completely goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development. Big tech can't dictate what we do with IP space just to appease their shareholders.

We all know Bezos got enough dollars (and IP addresses) in his pocket. He don't need any more.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker
________________________________
From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Mikael Abrahamsson via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:19 AM
To: Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:

> renting the allocations they own to their customers. (The 240/4 "for
> future use" problem is a relative distraction, honestly! but amazon's
> use of it *all* does irk me, as I had intended that space be used for
> all of humanity). Certainly by finally charging for their IPV4

The fact that it's now used internally in places, is yet another reason it
will never show up in the global routing table.

Turning 240/4 into something usable on the wider Internet is a futile
fight. It's however good for internal use as IPv4 already often needs
translation boxes to talk to the global Internet (DFZ). So the work
already done on making end systems able to use 240/4 is fine, but it also
meant it's now used for internal things. So the fight should be to make it
into proper RFC1918 style addresses for internal use so everybody agrees
what's going on.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4250 bytes --]