Did AS8003 just disappear?(kentik.com) |
Did AS8003 just disappear?(kentik.com) |
few days ago I had ipv6 enabled on my pi4 and was trying to update it, turns out that the ipv6 address of archive.raspberrypi.org was returning 404 (its fixed now)
but it took me like 3 seconds to just net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6 = 1, and i am not gonna enable it until something on ipv4 does not work
(and by ipv6 i mean native ipv6 from my ISP)
it has been like that for the last 15 years, since we gave native ipv6 to our users in my ISP, people just had worse experience than not having it.
Happy Eyeballs (RFC 8305) is the typically touted solution, but even that doesn't help in the scenario you describe: IPv6 connectivity wasn't broken.
The problem is simply that we now have twice as many things that can go wrong and no plausible route away from dual stack in sight.
But in this context - I don't think this is helpful. If you care enough (and have means to do it) to move all of your network to IPv6, then you for sure aren't using DoD space internally.
Not that I don't appreciate the free trial offer. But before getting into data characteristics, I'm curious which addresses should be examined in a cursory internal look-see?
sounds pretty familiar.
The questions that started to surface included: Who is AS8003? Why are they announcing huge amounts of IPv4 space belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense? And perhaps most interestingly, why did it come alive within the final three minutes of the Trump administration?
From the linked article on top, as background info. Quite interesting.
I also speculated that it's possible it has to do with some kind of internal policy where if you don't use address space in a certain period of time, you lose it or it must be sold, and announcing it created a record of it being in use. Depending on for how long it was announced, the captured one-way traffic to it would provide a snapshot sample of source-dest relationships in that address space for a map.
It could also have just been used as an internal DoD ASN and it got leaked and announced by mistake, with all those routes redistributed into the announcement, though we'd have to look at the data to really recognize that error. A political hypothesis was fun, but unless it yielded evidence of some underlying activity, there seem like other explanations that could indicate the cause.
Entire comment thread is irrelevant bikeshedding.
My employer squats on... another popular range... for a secondary non-routed network. They can't be bothered to egress filter it on the primary routed network so we sometimes have misconfigured systems trying to ship data off to random servers on another continent.
The DOD owns all IPs starting with 6, 7, 11, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 55, 214, and 215. To a network operator who spends his day filling out forms explaining why he needs each and every /32 I imagine it must make you feel like someone who spends half his income to live in a tiny crumby apartment in a city surrounded by vacant unsecured mansions. The owners of these mansions haven't set foot in them for thirty years. So surely it must be safe to just move in right?
You mean they never actually turned that one back in?
Dang it! I thought that was one of my minor successes during my time in that role.
;(
I wouldn't waste time asking someone to support it. It's 2021.
It is one of these things that customers who know they want it will look for an ISP that offers it. There is no point in asking one who doesn't in 2021 because they will be like "oh we will look into it", and then close your ticket.
> I am a customer, and I just filter out providers that don't have IPv6 as I assume they are incompetent.
> I wouldn't waste time asking someone to support it. It's 2021.
True. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks like this. The ISPs that don't support it usually have huge ancient antiquated middle boxes that can't be upgraded. I wouldn't choose an ISP with old cumbersome infrastructure.
No customer demand was involved, I imagine.
If you give each subscriber an IPv4, then yeah, added operational cost, no revenue, maybe added capital cost depending on your equipment. Not much upside for a small ISP. In a competitive market, v6 can get you some points with the technical folks, but not many.
Exactly this. There is no "backwards compatible" way to have more addresses in a protocol that's wedded to 32-bit addresses. That's just how numbers work. The protocol with a larger address space will be incompatible, and so anybody who seems surprised/ disappointed hasn't even really thought about the problem.
Out of all the stakeholders in IPv6 migration, I blame the ISPs the most.