[139758] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Tue Apr 19 06:47:00 2011
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for
abuse reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <1696CE1C-B1CE-42AD-9F65-2CF715F2A919@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:46:49 -0400
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> To try to bring this back to NANOG (instead of PPML-light), the issue =
is that since at least two alternative registries have apparently been =
established, how are network operators going to deal with the fact that =
the currently execrable "whois database" is almost certainly going to =
get worse?
David -=20
=20
Does it have to get worse simply because there is change? I see no =
particular=20
reason that the Internet number registry system can't evolve into =
something
with multiple registries including overlapping service regions and =
competition=20
if that's what folks actually want. We've seen this in the DNS space =
and I can't=20
say that it necessarily worse or better than what resulted from the =
prior single=20
registry model.
However, it's definitely true that what occurred in the DNS space is =
clearly=20
documented, has a complete fabric of contractual agreements, and was =
part of=20
a multi-year discussion regarding goals of the overall system and =
various=20
proposals on how it should best change.
Now, Internet number resources are different in many ways, including the=20=
fact that network operators must have reliable access to the information =
in
order to keep things running. Registrants may have exclusive use of =
their=20
numbers, but the network operators also have a right to know the =
registration
of any given piece of address space. As you know, multiple IP =
registries=20
would definitely pose some coordination challenges in being able to =
reliably
account for all of the address space at any given moment.
What we lack is any meaningful proposals on how to restructure the =
Internet
number registry system, including what are the goals of doing such, how =
are=20
those goals and the existing requirements are met, and what protections =
are=20
needed for integrity of the system. It's possible if this were discussed =
by=20
the global community, it might be obvious how to best proceed or not.=20
Personally, I do not see it as inevitable that "alternative registries" =
must=20
have a detrimental impact to the WHOIS database, unless they are =
introduced=20
in an uncoordinated manner and without global discussion of the actual =
goals.
/John