This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01...
- Next message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Mon Jul 14 17:48:21 CEST 2008
> Such adjustments would almost certainly mean that operators > of private or not widely announced IP networks would incur > costs. On the other hand in the absence of such adjustments > the operators of the Internet would incur costs because of > the unavailability of IPv4 addresses. Bottom line is that there are no operators of private networks who are not also operators of the Internet. > I am sure such > trade-offs would be discussed vividly within BT. ;-) And within Equant/Orange, and Deutsche Telekom and MCI/Verizon and Savvis and all the other operators who run both private IP networks and public IP networks. > Responsible policy making will take into account these basic > issues and adjust policies where necessary. That's why I raised the issue. Also, please don't assume that I am trying to put BT's interests forward here. I'm not. I am trying to put forward the interests of BT's customers who rely on these globally unique registered IP addresses but who rarely have a voice in RIPE or other RIRs. > In this > particular case it is important to consider the likelihood of > un-coordinated use of IPv4 addresses which are allocated but > not widely used on the Internet and the associated > operational costs as well as the consequential loss of > credibility of the Internet registry system. The likelihood is 100% and it has been going on for at least 10 years that I know about. Some people rely on globally unique registered IP addresses and others are happy if they can use addresses that aren't being used by anybody else in their region, or that are on a network that is separate in some way. An RIR registration gives you the right to use certain addresses, but it does not prohibit anybody else from using the same addresses. Same thing goes for AS numbers such as AS 54271. > Blindly insisting on the status-quo in the face of a changing > environment is never helpful and often counter-productive. I assure you that I have given this matter a lot of thought, and I continue to find IPv6 deployment superior to all the proposals for a heroic last gasp of IPv4. > So I encourage those that favour "reclamation" propose > concrete policies which take into account the issues which > Michael raises. That is the core of my argument. Most people making policy change proposals are thinking only of the public Internet and are only trying to create something that helps ISPs. But IP addresses and the IP technology suite are not just there for the benefit of ISPs. There is a broader community that relies on this network technology and it is no solution at all if a policy change cuts off some part of the larger community. > One avenue to proceed could be to create multiple IPv4 > address space registries ... boxes inside Pandora's ? It is proven technology. A few years ago I set up a server in the UK which used IP addresses that Afrinic has assigned to a company in Morocco. Internet access worked fine and I downloaded software upgrades and browsed Google and various websites. NAT makes sinning profitable. But, you always have to ask this question. If I am going to spend some money to implement NAT, why not implement NAT-PT and insure that the investment helps me into the brave new world of IPv6, instead of spending money that backs me into a corner with IPv4 NAT? --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01...
- Next message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]