[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Re: Re: a consensus, about what?

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 03:51:30PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Daniel Roesen wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:31:43AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >>> You have an AS and do multihome? Pay a small one-time fee (reg effort)
> >>> and small annual fee (to verify that you still do exist care for the
> >>> prefix to stay registered, and to cover costs for the database entries
> >>> for your prefix) and be done with it.[1]
> >> Note that the billing should then still be 'more' expensive than a LIR's
> >> individual allocation otherwise most LIR's will convert into
> >> independents which gives one more power over prefixes than the above.
> > 
> > Nonsense. PI doesn't let the LIR assign IP space to their customers. End
> > site PI ain't an option for real LIRs.
> 
> This is not what I meant. But why would endsite PI not be an option for
> 'real LIR's? What is a 'real LIR' actually according to you and what
> isn't?

A "real LIR" is a Local Internet Registry. A Local Internet Registery
assigns resources they got allocated by a RIR to hand out to end users.
As PI space isn't subassignable, PI is not an option for LIRs.

> They all are in it for the money in the end. If their business is
> renting out "address space" (like the RIR's do effectively) then so be
> it, that is their business.

But we're talking about independent IP space for "end users", not for
LIRs.

> There are maybe some LIR's now though who don't want to be a LIR, but
> only did so to get address space. These might want to drop to the xxxxxs
> membership category to reduce cost at a certain point.

Yep. XXXXXS membership (not "LIR" - there's no registry operation
involved) with a small basic fee for the essential one-off tasks of
assigning and maintaining the records for an ASN, an IPv4 PI and an IPv6
PI block (read: a basic multihomer setup).

> >> A LIR should know the procedures which should make requests very easy to
> >> process, at least that is the idea, which lowers load on the RIR's.
> > 
> > Should. Please come back with some hard data from NCC to explain to us
> > that PI holders place a higher workload on NCC staff than any real LIR.
> > Good luck.
> 
> There might not be one, but you can expect it to be this way.

Sorry, cannot believe that. I was hoping that NCC folks would chime in
and add some statistics to this point.... any takers?

> Maybe add a 'failed request' 'extra work' 'number of requests' etc to
> the scoring scheme to take care of this?

Difficult. Who decides what incidents are actually extra-billed?

> One time requesters most likely don't know the policy, while LIR's do as
> they should be doing it way more often.

*cough*

> Of course some independent contractor could do a lot of PI requests
> for independent organisations, but then that entity is sort of working
> like a LIR, but then differently.

I cannot follow this analogy, sorry. This contractor isn't responsible
for the assigned resources in the future, but the receiving end user is.
Unlike LIR PA space where the LIR is in charge.

> >>> All those folks who question the right of ASses (AUTONOMOUS systems) to
> >>> have their own IP space and a routing table slot (in lieu of a better,
> >>> sufficiently!capable replacement architecture) for technical reasons
> >>> ("but our routers will break!") should ask themselves one question: are
> >>> YOU ready to return YOUR prefix(es) because you are NOT in the routing
> >>> tier 1 club? If not, SHUT UP. Thanks. All but the real routing Tier 1s
> >>> don't have any TECHNICAL need to announce their own allocations. All
> >>> other non-upstream-free ISPs only have ECONOMIC reasons to do so. You
> >>
> >> With a too large routing table (which are indeed far from there) for the
> >> currently deployed routers it will indeed be very economical as they
> >> need to be upgraded. But this does depend on landrush. Running out of
> >> 65k ASN's is the first thing that will happen. Though I wonder if some
> >> smaller routers still deployed at endsites will like to handle that.
> > 
> > There is no need for that. Read again. Noone except the real Tier 1s
> > have the _technical_ _necessity_ to run default-free. All others can
> > filter as much as they want, and use default route(s) for all else.
> 
> I thought you needed PI because you wanted to do "traffic engineering",
> how are you going to do traffic engineering with the following in your
> tables:
> 
> ::/0 fe80::2 eth0
> ::/0 fe80::1 eth1
> 
> Or you only want "Inbound TE" ($world to you) and not "Outbound TE"?

I want to do both. Read again. You're in the camp denying all but ISPs
the "right" to do BGP, because it's technically not necessary. Of course
it isn't if you ignore all requirements put forward, but then it's also
not necessary for the ISPs - except the real Tier 1s.

Outbound TE is the easy part anyway, inbound TE is the tricky one. But
I know that you understood BGP, so I'm not telling news here. :-)

> >> Economics, that is people who won't be able to update their routers,
> >> will then figure out who can have a slot there or not.
> > 
> > No, they will start to default as they still need to access the content.
> 
> Thus add extra prefixes to the routing tables, let everybody upgrade
> their routers, but don't do it yourself. Nice. Letting others pay for
> your dirt.

Who are the others who NEED to upgrade? Only real Tier 1s. Only they
NEED to have a "full table". All others can default to various degree,
even to the extremes. Don't ignore that fact.

> >> RIR's fortunately do not guarantee routability, thus them giving out
> >> /48's from a single global /16 or so, to sites 'that desperately need
> >> them', allows people who don't want them to filter when table pressure
> >> become tight. Adding some geography in that big block might even allow
> >> one to at least carry the traffic to a 'local' IX to hand it off.
> > 
> > Hand it off to whom? You need paid transit for that.
> 
> You want everything for free? :)

No, I just want costs that aren't artificially inflated costs in order
to push some political/economical agenda put forward by an (at large)
ISP lobby.

Regarding your mentioned scenario: this kind of routing structure would
definately need a complete redesign of how money flows in the global
Internet, aligning more to the POTS interconnection fee model. That'll
be bureaucracy unseen yet in the Internet, even with the most telcoish
peering heavyweights.

> I know the OCCAID folks are getting close to a global free transit
> network, but they also only arrive at IX's, your equipment still
> needs to be there to use those resources. People are not coming to
> you. But hey you know that very well :)

Uhm, I'm not OCCAID, I'm just a random invited technical advisor to them.
I'm for sure not representing OCCAID in any fashion. How do you get to
this connection?!? I didn't even think of them in this whole discussion.

> > That complicates
> > things enormously. That's the whole can-of-worms related to geographic/
> > geopolitic addressing+routing. I won't delve into that here as it was
> > discussed at length elsewhere.
> 
> Oh don't worry, I don't see that working either. Too much politics.

:-)

I'm not sure wether we won't arrive there anyway. The current pretty
much strictly tree-like money flow (with small artefacts like paid
peering) will prolly have to adapt to a much more interconnected, meshed
structure in the future... which will also allow things like geo-routing
to have a chance of working at all.

> PS: where are all those companies who are in desperate need for this?

Not here. And my POV is more the non-commercial organization. Those had
a respected place in the Internet once and weren't seen as a "nuisance
who don't want to spend VC money left and right".


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0