RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Hi Eric,
 

|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.


Just FYI, all v6 allocation right now is being done in a PI manner.


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


s/need/want/.  I have yet to see any site that could not suffice with PA
space.  Yes, it would have some (possibly painful) impact, but it is doable.


|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 issue is simple, and is still the one I initially raised: can we
reasonably recommend an architecture that requires renumbering (either once,
or repeatedly)?  Your answer is a clear and resounding 'no', coupled with a
preference for NAT based soliutions..


|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.


In short, it's a non-technical issue with only a socio-economic solution.
That's not very satisfying from an architectural issue.  Just as there is
clear over-use of PI space today, there is no technical basis here for
requiring certain 'have-not' end-users to remain with local prefixes while
the 'haves' get global PI service.

Tony


--
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