<div dir="ltr"><br><div>This reminds me to the 5 stages of grief.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I thought that we were in "acceptance" but it looks that we are going back to "bargain".</div><div><br></div><div>:)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:30 AM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hello Jordi, Carlos e Jorge.<br>
Thanks a lot for your input and views on this subject.</p>
<p>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 ?</p>
<p>On the last proposal I have read it is mentioned there by the
authors: "<i>The following operating systems support the use of
<a href="http://240.0.0.0/4" target="_blank">240.0.0.0/4</a> 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>
</i><i>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></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 ?</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Fernando Frediani<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191moz-cite-prefix">On 24/07/2019 17:40, Carlos Marcelo
Martinez Cagnazzo wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Hi Fernando,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I’ll be answering in Spanish if that is not a
problem.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Es una muy buena pregunta. Resumiendo, el espacio
IPv4 <a href="http://240.0.0.0/4" target="_blank">240.0.0.0/4</a> 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" target="_blank">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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>¿Porque?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Saludos,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/Carlos</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 24, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Fernando Frediani
<<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div>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" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
<a class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
Cancelar suscripcion:
<a class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
LACNOG mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a>
<a class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a>
Cancelar suscripcion: <a class="gmail-m_-7589861820803792191moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
LACNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
Cancelar suscripcion: <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div>