<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=RU link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> See in-line<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:57 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: david.freedman@uk.clara.net; nick@inex.ie; frederic@placenet.org; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] <o:p> </o:p> poty@iiat.ru wrote:<o:p></o:p> > The clash is about:<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > * RIR-space<o:p></o:p> > + guaranteed globally unique<o:p></o:p> > + *CAN* be routed on the internet<o:p></o:p> > - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for <o:p></o:p> > private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Bad point of view.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You are going to require that people route everything onto the Internet?<o:p></o:p> Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>“assigned” blocks is not the things, that involves the routing. If you mean allocations – say that.<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>2. <![endif]>If it is THEIR networks, why the need GLOBALLY unique addresses? Then they could use ANY addresses they like not asking me, or you, or RIPE!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > And private networks<o:p></o:p> > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as <o:p></o:p> > far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I think you can’t understand what is difference between private usage and announcing the block in the Internet. If you want to use some IP addresses privately, you can do it without any RIR. And only in the case you want to announce some block to the public network, you have to abide the Internet rules and get unique numbers!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't clash.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their internal "totally private" networks?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It’s the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? Or take in the consideration the internal problems of SOME cases into the whole region policy?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Vladislav Potapov<o:p></o:p> Ru.iiat<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>