[127300] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Todd Underwood was a little late
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Mon Jun 21 13:02:08 2010
From: "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org>
To: "'Michael Dillon'" <wavetossed@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim0D9hvdEMOu2HOPpHOq_0ecCZ6X6oF1FGdJF96@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:01:49 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetossed@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:39 PM
> To: Lee Howard
> Cc: Todd Underwood; Christopher Morrow; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Todd Underwood was a little late
>=20
> " "Registered but unrouted" would include space that is in use in =
large
> > private networks that aren't visible from your standard sources for
> > route views, such as U.S. DoD (6, 11, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30 /8) or U.K.
> > MoD (25/8).
>=20
> Have you verified each of these address ranges or are you just a =
mindless
> robot repeating urban legends?
Turing test? =20
"standard sources for route views" =3D "route-views"
YSSfRVMV
=20
> By your definition, there is an awful lot more "registered but =
unrouted"
space
> and researchers have been reporting on this for 10 years or more. In =
order
> to correctly identify what you think you are talking about, you need =
to
take
> into account the date a range was registered and the date that you =
scanned
> the data. If the difference between the two dates is less than some =
small
> number, say one year, then it is probably routed space which has not =
yet
> been routed but soon will be. Different people will want to set that
breakpoint
> at different timescales for obvious reasons.
I also chose not to define "The Internet" or "routing table" and avoided
terms
like "DFZ" and "WTF."
> I encourage someone to do the work to list all such ranges along with =
the
> dates, and supply them as a feed, like Cymru does. Best would be to =
allow
> the feed recipient to filter based on age of block.
Why? Just because it's never been routed doesn't mean it never will be.
I said "unlikely to be routed," but using such space is a game of =
chance.
Unless, of course, somebody at one of those organizations said, "This
prefix will never be announced to "the Internet," where "the Internet" =
is
defined in a meaningful way to the engineer applying the filter.
> > and starting to use addresses like these already (for devices not
capable
> > of IPv6) for internal networking (not publically routed). =A0I =
believe
this
> > is generally considered bad citizenship, but I'm interested in why?
>=20
> Stupidity. Many people have no historical perspective and think that =
the
> only users of I{P address space that matter are ISPs. I don't consider =
it
> bad citizenship if the "adopted" space is not routed publicly, and =
even
> the definition of "publicly" is hard to pin down. If someone wants to
route
> such space to a 100 or so ASNs in Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan,
Uzbekistan,
> Afghanistan and China, then I don't think that they are blatantly =
being
> bad Internet citizens. Particularly if they carefully chose whose
addresses
> to "adopt".
So you support Todd Underwood's proposal? =20
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/presentations/Wednesday/Prefixes_as=
_Bu
ndles_of_Probability%20%281%29.pdf
>=20
> > Is there a range most people camp on?
>=20
> No. And it would be dumb to do that. Smarter is to use some range
> that nobody else is known to be camping on except the registrant
> and their network is geographically distant from yours.
Geographically, not topologically, or usefully?
>=20
> --Michael Dillon
>=20
> P.S. At this point, the IPv6 transition has failed, unlike the Y2K
> transition, and
For certain values of "fail." The odds of a dual-stack transition as
initially
envisioned by the IETF are vanishingly small, but IPv6 will be a =
significant
part of the coping strategies once RIRs allocate their last blocks of =
IPv4.
> P.P.S. I saw a report that someone, somewhere, had analysed some data
> which indicates that IP address allocation rates are increasing and =
there
is
> a real possibility that we will runout by the end of this year, 2010.
> Does anyone
> know where I can find the actual analysis that led to this report?
Geoff Huston's data are available, I think, so you can crunch your own=20
numbers. InfoWorld had a chart where they only used five months of
allocations to project the future, and it's not clear how many data =
points
they used to draw their line.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/networking/beware-the-black-market-rising-ip-a=
ddr
esses-729 =20
As of today, I see ten /8s assigned by IANA in 2010. I count 15 =
remaining
/8s. When IANA has only five remaining, they will allocate one to each
RIR. Will the last six months look like the first six months? Faster =
or
slower?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml=
Lee
