RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

["Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>]

>From: Tony Li [mailto:tony.li@tony.li] 
>Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:24 PM
>To: Fleischman, Eric; jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; rrg@psg.com
>Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

> Hi Eric,


|I also, perhaps incorrectly, perceive that you don't seem to realize 
|that the difference between ISPs is trivial when compared to the 
|extreme differences between end users. I state that any model that 
|treats all end users as equivalent is inherently broken and any 
|Internet solution based on such a faulty notion is unlikely to succeed 
|because it does not recognize reality.


>I'm failing to see what's relevant here.  Of course I don't see all 
>users as equivalent or all ISPs as equivalent.  Arguing about their 
>relative differences doesn't seem to shed any particular insight into 
>the routing architecture.  

>Treating all end users as equivalent isn't my position, it's simply 
>an observation about the behavior of many ISPs when it comes to PI.  
>The reality is that the sales person will simply accept PI from just 
>about anyone.  Thus, trying to get any meaningful architectural
difference 
>in the treatment of different end-sites is going to be problematic at
best.

Tony,

I see ... apparently I misunderstood your position. I apologize...

So, let's go back to first instances:

1) PI in IPv4 is currently complex due to the many pre-CIDR deployments.
I can't remember how many Class Cs and Class Bs we had before we traded
many of them in but it was probably triple digits. Certainly we all
recognize that pre-CIDR allocations harm aggregation. Regardless, PI in
IPv6 must always be treated in a CIDR-like manner so it should have
better aggregation characteristics than IPv4.

2) IPv4 aggregation can be improved by continuing to support (while
addresses are available) the turning in of disparate Classed addresses
in order to receive an aggregatable IPv4 CIDR block. This should support
voluntary requests but it should be a requirement for satisfying all
additional IPv4 address allocation requests.

3) The hobbyist and SOHO user is well served by PA allocations because
they are dependent upon their ISP for their network support.

4) The large end user, particularly governments, obviously need PI space
for the reasons I've discussed far too much recently.

5) Therefore, the issue that concerns you probably centers upon how the
many medium sized corporations and entities will be supported. I suggest
that network requests above a certain size may qualify for PI and must
be handled by an entity other than ISPs, to counteract the issue you
observed above. ISPs should only be able to allocate from their own PA
space. 

My recommendation, therefore, is that your issue, Tony, be handled by
only enabling ISPs to hand out PA addresses for their own customers only
and have some other worldwide administrative entity be responsible for
allocating PI addresses for the Internet. There should be a well-known
cost for "buying" certain PI CIDR address range sizes from that entity
for private use (i.e., address ownership should cost something). That
latter administrative entity needs to be guided by well-established
policies so that their actions will be consistent, fair, and above
reproach with a well-known mechanism established for review and handling
disputes. They need to be particularly sensitive to requests coming from
governments.

I will now retreat to my "cone of silence".

Best wishes,

--Eric

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg