[Freedombox-discuss] In-the-cloud infrastructure and business involvement

[Yannick]

Le jeudi 17 mars 2011 à 12:52 -0500, Charles N Wyble a écrit :
> On 3/17/2011 11:34 AM, Yannick wrote:
> >
> > Let's clarify one thing: end to end principle is broken by ISP,
> 
> It's broken by access network providers. The "backbone"/transit networks 
> are wide open.
> Well there are peering agreements and so forth in place that we aren't 
> privy to, but for the
> most part things flow fairly well.

I agree.

> 
> >   it is
> > not broken by design.
> Correct. NAT was created to extend Ipv4 by many years.
> 
> >   In some case they do not give you a real internet
> > address, i.e. a world wide IP address (even better a fixed one ; I do
> > have one with my ISP),
> 
> Right. Several ISPs now hand out an RFC1918 IP address on the WAN 
> interface.
> 
> > in some other case they filter content, e.g.
> > forbidding some protocols.
> 
> Inbound or outbound? I have seen a few cases of that.
> 

AFAIK mostly outbound.

> >   It is because they do act as an administrator
> > of the network by taking measure against what you can do with the
> > network, against your freedom, not as a service provider.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > Let's be even more clear: an IP address does not cost anything; you just
> > ask to the regulation authority, and if found valid for technical reason
> > they give it to you for free.
> 
> This isn't true. All RIR have small fees per year for 
> assignments/allocations. Also assignments have a
> cost that most be borne by operators around the world. Please see 
> http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html for
> a great explanation of this. Routing isn't free. However we could 
> certainly spread the cost around to far more end points.
> 

Sure, there is a cost, still:
"Can I buy IP addresses from the RIPE NCC? 
        
        No. Internet number resources (IPv4, IPv6 and Autonomous System
        (AS) Numbers) are a shared public resource and do not have a
        value.
        
        Members are charged fees based on the services that they receive
        from the RIPE NCC."

Source:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-ipv4-address-space
        
Thus if you have a use for it, once you're part of the process and paid
the fee for administrative process, you can get a lot of addresses!
(well, for IPv6, as IPv4 address space is depleted since 1 february ;)

> >   The issue with current implementation
> > (i.e. IPv4) is there is not enough address for all because the field
> > defining the address is too short (something easily fixed in IPv6, the
> > next iteration of the base internet protocol).
> 
> Yes this is true. Though v6 has far more problems that will have us 
> moving to new protocols (probably using same address system) before
> we run out of addresses.

Yes, there is still work in progress...

> 
> > Even more: filtering protocols for security reasons or legal issues?
> > They fail: there is much spam and they do not prevent copyrighted files
> > sharing.
> 
> So true.
> >>
> > It is not that moving bits is evil, it is that a business model based
> > almost exclusively on it wont pay much, and will pay even less in the
> > future.
> 
> So true.
> 
> >   One of the main idea behind the freedombox is mesh wifi, which
> > mean we do have yet the technology to let the people moving bits by
> > itself at a cost far much cheaper than the 30 euros I do pay each month
> > to my ISP in france.
> 
> If it can be properly managed and scaled, yes we can build a very large 
> scale parallel network that will evolve the internet to where it needs 
> to be.

I hope it!

> 
> > I do not see the reason for IPv6 tunneling using a centralized service,
> > when the freedombox itself can do it. As I told you I do have an IPv4
> > fixed address, I can do this tunneling too. I do not see anything
> > preventing me to use IPv6 in my local network and be connected to the
> > actual internet based on IPv4.
> 
> Um.... you need native v6 connectivity for this to work. If you have 
> that then great. Tunnel away!
> 
> However if you have native v6 connectivity, wouldn't those who are 
> network close to you also have native connectivity and not need to tunnel
> through you to get to the ipv6 net? For those that need to connect to 
> the v4 net, wouldn't they just use the default route that already exists?
> Certain economies of scale favor going through a built up infrastructure.

No, I do not have v6 connectivity. In france we do have pioneers
providing internet access since very long ago (as a matter of fact, the
oldest provider in france, since 1992 if I do not mistake), in a form
where you're not a client, you're part of the board ("association loi
1901"): http://www.fdn.fr They do provide IPv6 and you've got 2^80
adresses!! (I think this will be enough for all free freedomboxes !)

Source: https://vador.fdn.fr/wiki/support:faq:ip_supplementaires
(french)

Best regards,
Yannick