Brian Dickson wrote: > Jeroen Massar wrote: >> Now the fun part of this, these 5 de-aggregated blocks which where just >> allocated by ARIN to a certain company called Affilias, the same company >> > (Presumably you meant to spell it "Afilias"...) >> that he is working for, is using his email address from and which name >> is also on the draft: >> >> 2001:500:16::/47 >> 2001:500:18::/45 >> 2001:500:20::/45 >> 2001:500:28::/46 >> 2001:500:2c::/48 >> >> > Uh, Jeroen, the affiliation with companies, as you well know, is > informative only. If you don't want to be seen as speaking as your company then don't use your companies email address and also do not state your company affiliation in the documents you submit. Clearly you do seem to answer for that same company without taking of hats as such the only conclusion that I can make is that you are actually still speaking for that company. I really can't see it any differently. > Pointing to what employers do when regarding proposals, is *way* off > base, in the realm of ad-hominem attacks - something specifically > against the mailing list charter. Why is that off-base? It clearly shows that not even your own company supports your proposal. Also where else would one raise that issue? As for calling everything which is a argument against your proposals "ad-hominem" attacks, please try to come up with something else. I know it is fun to try and discredit people, but that really won't scare me off in any way. That I am raising this issue directly to you should be seen as being nice from your end. As a lot of other people are also saying similar things but are not able to say so. I am not coming forward as any company, I am coming forward as an individual user of the internet and I have huge concerns with what you are trying to propose and what you are actually doing yourself/company. > *However*, since you bring up the question: > > These are used specifically, and explicitly, for DNS anycast services > for Afilias, as operator > of numerous TLDs (Top Level Domains), such as ".org", ".info", ".mobi", > ".aero", ".asia", etc... Thus you are advocating on one side (according to your private opinion while pushing the name of your company) that companies should only get a small amount of address space (eg a /48) and only provide a /120 to end user while your company burns through a /47, 2x /45, a /46 and a /48? And that because you host some nameservers and are going to anycast those? If you are going to anycast them, why do you need more than a single /48? Now if you where really trying to make a good stance on your proposed changes with which you are requesting to change how IPv6 works in every host around the world, you might want to start working on it a little bit closer at home. Also, if you are really trying to propose those changes to the various communities and are set on pushing them through and lowering the amount of routes in the routing tables, why did you not ask for a single /128 as that is what you need for that purpose, nothing more, nothing less. > If you had bothered to look at the registrations, or IRR, or anywhere, > that would be obvious. As you clearly do not know I am one of the few people who look at every registration made. And they are not in any IRR yet, not at least in the ones I know of, thus can you care to share which one it actually is in? They also only just now popped up in the stats file thus finding them "anywhere else" is not possible. > Even the web site www.afilias.info, makes it very clear we do DNS > registries. And? There are a lot of companies doing exactly that. Still they only requested a single /48 for that or are using PA space. > E.g. Take a look at the *previous* ARIN assignment: [..] Again, why do you need so many disjunct blocks? Especially in the light that your draft mentions that it is meant to lower the amount of routes that other companies will be announcing. You do expect that a huge ISP will only announce one single /20 and thus receives all their traffic in that one spot, but for your own purposes suddenly you are special and you are going to announce separate prefixes? >> So one has to wonder, if they already got their own de-aggregated >> prefixes, why do they want to block others from doing so. >> >> > Why do you interpret "let's all avoid polluting the DFZ" to mean "If you > see someone else polluting, it is okay to pollute"? I never stated that anywhere. I wonder why you think I stated that. But just in case you do not want to read what I write, I'll state it again: Why are you proposing that ISP's should have only one single block and instead of them asking for one huge prefix have the end-user receive a lot less space, this while you are requesting several large blocks, are going to announce those blocks separately and are most likely only going to use a few number of IP addresses in those blocks? See the big problem with what you are proposing and what you are actually doing? But as you can't seem to agree with yourself on your own statements, it is not so odd that you can't seem to understand what I am stating. > We (Afilias) have /48's as direct assignments, specifically because each > DNS TLD needs to operate independently. And a lot of companies will, at one point, want to have separate blocks for similar reasons. But your draft goes against this. And clearly you don't even agree with yourself. For a nice technical question. Will those blocks you are going to announce all be announced over physically different mediums or are you going to announce them over the same paths? If it is the latter, then why again did you request multiple blocks and are you going to pollute the DFZ with that? > And even though we only use a single IP address from the anycast blocks, > the smallest direct assignment possible under ARIN policy is a /48. And thus you request and receive: 2001:500:16::/47 2001:500:18::/45 2001:500:20::/45 2001:500:28::/46 2001:500:2c::/48 Except for the latter one, they are all larger than a single /48. Can you elaborate on that? Are you still going to stick a single box in that huge /48? If you are so confident about the proposed /120 for home user, why not request a /120 for your DNS servers? > Clearly, root servers and TLD servers need to be globally reachable. > > (*Those* router slots are an example of very good return on the usage, > IMHO. The Internet is not usable without them.) A lot of people can live without .cn but would require google.com/cnn.com/playboy.com/kink.com to work. As such do these sites then suddenly also require special treatment because they are unusable otherwise? Also, I require my own private home site to be globally reachable. As such, can I also get a /48 + router slot for that? See the issue you are trying to debate while not keeping up on that same issue yourself? [..] > Wouldn't it be better to ensure that the rate of router slot > consumption, is low enough to match up > with natural router amortization and replacement periods (3-5 years) > instead of causing another > round of ISP bankruptcies? Why not start doing the lower router slot consumption rate with yourself or at least trying to convince your own company to do so? >> As for the draft/proposal itself: why try to move the bits on the right >> side (the /64 portion) when ISPs can already shove the bits on the left >> side by simply justifying more address space? >> >> > More address space (by getting new PA blocks) means more router slots > being eaten. You clearly do not understand the current way that blocks are being allocated. They justify address space need as predicted for several years in the future, and they have space to grow on the RIR side. As such when the do run out of a /32 they can grow it to a /29. One last thing to summarize it all: Eat your own dog food. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature