<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Jordi</p>
<p>Yes, I am aware and certainly isn't something easy (if even
possible) to handle. Not only Windows XP and Vista but as
mentioned EOL Routers still running in many places.<br>
The last time I was in similar discussion the only explanation
given was "It is not worth" but only that would be gospel if not
questioned why, so wanted to understand deeper the details
mentioned here. In reality I better understand this is near
impossible to get fully functional, and at best scenario would be
a "poor quality IP space" as mentioned by Carlos. But needed more
content shared by some of you in order to understand it better and
also be able to explain to others as I have not participated in
these discussions in IETF myself.</p>
<p>Thanks to all who shared their views on this topic.<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/07/2019 12:30, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via LACNOG wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7346F6B6-A283-44BD-9DC5-0DED5D6331DB@consulintel.es">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo Car";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.HTMLconformatoprevioCar
{mso-style-name:"HTML con formato previo Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;}
span.EstiloCorreo21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="EstiloCorreo21"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"></span></span><span
class="EstiloCorreo21"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"
lang="EN-US">Hi Fernando,</span></span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Let’s suppose all the CE and network
equipment work with that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Let’s suppose only Windows XP and Vista has a
problem with that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Do you know how many clients in government
networks and enterprises are still using those, not to
mention home users …<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">I really think this will not be against IPv6
deployment, but at a minimum not helpful, and the effort
required, consequently, better used in IPv6 deployment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Every time we “just speak” about “we may
extend a bit IPv4 lifetime” many decision makers say, “oh
well, this is going on, one more reason not to rush into
IPv6”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">El 24/7/19
21:30, "LACNOG en nombre de Fernando Frediani" <<a
href="mailto:lacnog-bounces@lacnic.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">lacnog-bounces@lacnic.net</a> en
nombre de <a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
escribió:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Hello Jordi, Carlos e Jorge.<br>
Thanks a lot for your input and views on this subject.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Yes, I think one the main things
to look at is this need of firmware upgrades everywhere and
where it has been blocked to be forwarded as legitimate
packet. But here it comes the first question: Is that the
situation on all or majority of big vendors or just some of
them ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">On the last proposal I have read
it is mentioned there by the authors: "<i>The following
operating systems support the use of 240.0.0.0/4 as unicast,
globally reachable address space: Solaris, Linux, Android,
Apple OSX, Apple IOS, and FreeBSD. This support has existed
since approximately 2008. There are some issues with
parts of BSD network stack that treat Class-E addresses as
"invalid". There are also cases of translation (NAT64)
where checks reject Class-E addresses and need small fixes.
In both cases we have the patches under review for FreeBSD.
Four out of the top 5 open source IoT stacks already treat
240/4 as unicast, with a 3 line patch awaiting submission
for the fifth.<br>
...<br>
Juniper routers block traffic for 240/4 by default, but
there has been a simple configuration switch to disable that
check since 2010, at which point they are fully functional."</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">One big problem mentioned that
remains is about recent versions of Microsoft Windows. That
would certainly have to be worked out, but in the other hand
the upgrade is much easier to reach most PCs than a firmware.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">I must agree with Carlos mention
about an kind 'poor quality IP space' due to these various
issues that would arise. If that would ever come to be a
reality it would have to be at some point some level of forced
retirement of many devices that no longer can receive updates.
And certainly this type of thing must be accounted on the
total cost.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">With regards Jordi's mention of a
single vendor not willing to do the proper updates to support
240/8 I guess that may not be a showstopper, but instead just
a hindering. Here it comes something interesting: as this
would be something very apparent and almost impossible to not
be unnoticed, it would be a lot of damage to those vendors who
fail to adapt. I mean, it would not be something partial that
could or not pass unnoticed in some situations like a minor
IPv6 of BGP feature not working as expected. Obviously this
must also be accounted to the total cost of making it happen.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Again, my view is that something
like this will not hit IPv6 Deployment. I think it is
happening well lately and will lucky continue to happen
exponentially for the next years and a optimistic scenario.
But in the other hand I still believe the dependency of IPv4
will increase in such way that in not much time ahead it will
start to cause serious growing conflicts that will not be
restricted to specific companies. As you very well know they
will still be need for translations even in a
near-perferct-IPv6 environment/network, some Hosting scenarios
and not to be forgotten, the new comers as Autonomous Systems
that are equally important the others mentioned.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">To finish, one question that still
keeps hitting my mind remains: Who had the idea in first place
to put a block in a IP space tagged as "Future Use" by IANA ?
What came to his/her mind to imagine it would never be used
for unicast ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Best regards<br>
Fernando Frediani<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">On 24/07/2019
17:40, Carlos Marcelo Martinez Cagnazzo wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Hi Fernando, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">I’ll be
answering in Spanish if that is not a problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Es una muy
buena pregunta. Resumiendo, el espacio IPv4 240.0.0.0/4
está marcado en los registros de IANA como “Uso Futuro”.
Esta asignación surge de la Sección 4 de la RFC 1112 (<a
href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1112"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1112</a>).
La pregunta es… ¿no podemos re-designar estos 16 /8s como
espacio unicast y asignarlos, dado que son tan necesarios?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Es una
pregunta muy válida. La RFC 1112 data de 1989, una fecha
que parece hoy casi prehistórica. La Internet en 1989 era
una red pequeña, limitada a organizaciones de gobierno,
universidades, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Yo tengo mi
posición personal, y no estoy convencido de que valga la
pena. No porque “vaya a demorar el despliegue de IPv6”,
sino por otra razón. Este espacio de direcciones, si lo
comenzamos a asignar, va a ser un espacio de
direccionamiento de calidad inferior.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">¿Porque?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Para poder
utilizar 240/4 como espacio unicast hace falta que los
fabricantes de equipamiento *todos* actualicen su software
y en sus stacks permitan que paquetes en este rango de
direcciones sea procesado como unicast. Estoy hoy no es
así. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Ahora bien,
no alcanza solo con que los fabricantes actualicen su
software. TODOS nosotros operadores desde microscópicos a
gigantes tenemos que actualizer los softwares y firmwares
de TODO nuestro equipamiento para que estos paquetes en la
240/4 sean tratados de igual manera que digamos, los de la
179/8. Todo equipo que hable IP producido en los últimos
30 años va a tener que ser actualizado.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Nuestro
historial como industria implementando estos cambios en
escala es muy malo. Hasta el día de hoy hay firewalls que
descartan paquetes UDP de DNS de mas de 512 bytes (EDNS0
data de 2013), stacks que implementan IPv6 mal, routers
que no soportan ciertos elementos de BGP, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Lo que va a
pasar es que eventualmente comencemos a asignar espacio de
la 240/8, quienes reciban espacio van a tener un servicio
de calidad muy muy inferior. Van a tener errores de
conexión y timeouts muy difíciles de depurar. Van a tener
problemas con sus clientes. Van a tener problemas en
conseguir tránsito y peering que soporte esto. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Por este
motivo fundamentalmente, no estoy de acuerdo con la
propuesta. Sin embargo, la discusión está abierta en el
IETF y serán todos más que bienvenidos en enviar sus
comentarios a las listas de correo relevantes. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Saludos,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">/Carlos<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">On Jul
24, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Hello
folks<br>
<br>
I wanted to put a question about this topic in
order to learn a bit deeper into this question
from the community who have better knowledge about
it, specially those who have more IETF
involvement.<br>
<br>
The last time I asked why still the 240/4 wasn't
turned into usable /8's to be distributed to all
RIRs and therefore to LIRs and End-users. The
explanation I was given at the time was that
people considered it for quiet a while and came to
a conclusion that was not worth the cost of
'changing everything needed to be changed' in
order to make it work as expected. Some have
mentioned that some network firmware had embedded
in it to not even forward packets in this IP
space.<br>
On this basis I wanted also to understand also who
was the 'clever' idea to deny forwarding to this
packets in firmware to something tagged as "Future
Use", therefore that had the expectation to be
used one day in the future ?<br>
<br>
I am asking this because I have been reading some
'yet again' proposals to make it viable and wanted
to understand what are the the biggest technical
challenges to make it viable.<br>
If it is true that some firmware have this
limitation, and it goes down to a CPE level I can
start understanding the amount of work to get
every single equipment updated to be able to talk
to these future networks. Even in a ISP/Telecom
level one thing that comes to mind is where you
have very old and EOF routers still in production
and people refusing to take them our of
production, no doubt even if Network vendors would
provide an updated firmware version those routers
would never receive it. Besides that what other
big concerns are in your view ?<br>
<br>
With regards the points some people frequently
raise about that any extension to IPv4 space is a
killer to IPv6 Deployments to come, I personally
refuse to believe in that, at least not in a
binary way was sometimes is preached. I see that
regardless the improvements in IPv6 deployment
(which I obviously support and actively practice
on my day by day) I always had the impression that
we will live with the IPv4 internet for at least,
in a very optimistic scenario for another 10 years
or more. Recently I read a report about this
subject that mentioned at least another 20 years.<br>
<br>
And even when it is said that no matter how much
IPv4 becomes available it will never be enough and
would be exhausted quiet quickly (probably true).
Well, I would say that if there is any chance for
these 'new' IPv4 to become functional they should
never be intended to be used as they have been in
the last decades, but instead to certain and
specific usages as mainly facilitate IPv6
deployment and translation techniques, Hosting and
other scenarios where no-IPv4-at-all is not an
option.<br>
<br>
Appreciate any comments and contributions to make
it possible to understand this subject better.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Fernando Frediani<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LACNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
Cancelar suscripcion: <a
href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="margin-left:35.4pt">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:35.4pt">LACNOG mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:35.4pt"><a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" moz-do-not-send="true">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:35.4pt"><a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:35.4pt">Cancelar suscripcion: <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">_______________________________________________
LACNOG mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a> Cancelar
suscripcion: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theipv6company.com">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may be
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for
the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further
non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use
of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a
criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information, even if partially, including attached files,
is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so
you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
communication and delete it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
LACNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a>
Cancelar suscripcion: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>