[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


The following is explicitly not written as co-chair of the IETF multi6 
WG.

> Kurt, as I made presentation in front of you and Brian
> Carpenter at multi6 WG meeting of IETF58 in Minneapolis

I think I have seen close to 40 presentations that all would solve the 
multihoming problem one way or the other, or at least parts of it.

> on Nov. 2003, it is possible for a small ISP delegated
> address blocks from multiple larger ISPs and can still
> have its own policy.

It's possible for a small ISP to get several blocks from their 
upstream, route them inside their network and assign each of their 
customers with an address out of each of those blocks. Does it scale? 
Nope. Can it handle failures in the upstream? No. Etc.

> Since then, you made no counter argument against my
> presentation that it is your fallacy to say things
> against the presentation.

There are several of the proposals in multi6 that have never received 
comments, nor support of any kind.

> For those of you who are not familiar with my (expired) draft
> used at the meeting, it is available at:
>
>    http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ohta-multihomed-isps-00.txt
>
> The interim conclusion of the draft is:
>
>    Thus, it is not essential that ISPs have their own TLAs.

Your document does not address the criterias for being classified in a 
particular category. It does not address what would happen if an ISP 
grow, get's split/divided. It does not address what the financial 
models for transit would be. It does not address the non-balance of 
local vs global traffic coverage. It does not take into account the 
current peering economics of the Internet. So it's really hard to say 
anything regarding it.

>> If he changes the single upstream his customers needs to
>> renumber.
>
> If one changes homing, one needs to renumber, of course.

Which is a limiting factor that I think you will that customers will 
find unacceptable.

> But, it has nothing to do with multihoming or hierarchical
> ISPs.
>
> Just as we shouldn't discourage customers change ISPs, we shouldn't
> discourage ISPs change upper level ISPs.

Having to renumber when chaining ISPs is not to discourage _change_ of 
ISP. It's to discourage signing up with that ISP in the first place.

>>> In favour of *what* to replace it?
>
>> RIR membership.
>
> No. It is proven not to scale.

In what way?

> Does it mean that it is beneficial for you if RIRs have more
> power even though it sacrifices ISPs and users of the Internet
> by requiring routers with a lot more routing table entries
> than necessary?

I am not following this. In what way would the RIRs get more "power"? 
The policies of the RIRs is set by the RIR community. We are having a 
lot more routing entries today than we need to, and people seems to 
think it is a good idea. Actually it is today used to implement 
policies that follow requirements set by users to their ISPs. Users 
that pay to get that policy.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQNgi/aarNKXTPFCVEQIAcQCfYowvBqwQ8MRQusq68q1OBTkKdwkAoPTb
zVVRNw/ZJa4p6sGXKMM20RRC
=DMSt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----