[75603] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Nov 18 13:23:02 2004
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:22:23 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>,
Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <1100797360.3557.15.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========58C9084F5D0A2C4AD087==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
This is flawed in a number of points:
1. 32 bit ASNs are coming at least as quickly as IPv6.
(/me ducks under table now as both camps probably take
offense)
2. There are currently 4 and will soon be 5 RIRs.
3. There are plenty of large organizations that are multihomed
that don't have 200 locations.
Owen
--On Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:02 PM +0100 Jeroen Massar=20
<jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:50 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> > For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF
>> > list in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many
>> > places' total bandwidth usage. So why don't we all just cut *THAT*
>> > off because there's no business case to support *THAT* either? :)
>>
>> let's be clear about the remaining roadblocks. just because some of you
>> don't like tony li or don't like what he said, doesn't make what he said
>> less true.
>
> We all *hate* Mr.Li (is there any reason to? :)
>
>> <SNIP> but for enterprises large or medium who build their own networks
>> and buy service from more than one provider and/or who peer directly,
>> they'll either have to have their own /32 or they'll use NAT.
>
> They should use NAP, NAT is the IPv4 thing, NAP is for IPv6 ;)
> Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg separate
> offices, locations etc. Thus they can, after becoming a LIR and getting
> an ASN, which most of the time they already have, easily get a /32.
>
> Actually, I would even go so far that the really large corps should be
> able to get a /32 from every RIR when they globally have offices, this
> could allow them to keep the traffic at least on the same continent, not
> having to send it to another place of the world themselves.
>
> That would really put the constraint on ASN's of course and thus: 65k*3
> =3D maximum of ~180k prefixes when every ASN owner did this (and they
> won't in most if not all cases).
>
> [--ot--]
>
> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:40 +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> In article <cistron.1100794375.3557.3.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>,
>> Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
>> > The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what
>> > spelling is 'in' this year?)
>> >
>> > But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the
>> > newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself =
is
>> > of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack
>> > dealers mansion.
>>
>> [OT]
>>
>> That depends on the jurisdiction. In many parts of the world,
>> downloading is NOT illegal. But making copyrighted files available
>> for download is illegal (without the proper autorization, ofcourse).
>
> Thus... say a newsserver full of illegal stuff is quite illegal?
> Or that other nice example 'proxy servers', they store the data and then
> relay it. A router could be said to 'store' the data also (in registers
> for like a zillionth microsecond ;) and
>
> Greets,
> Jeroen
>
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========58C9084F5D0A2C4AD087==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBnOhjn5zKWQ/iqj0RAodSAJ9p3Iamu935eEWbAiMnCmQGaLBTjwCeNlSy
AW/L1kBV353SmAiAcFQFDCM=
=BXlb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========58C9084F5D0A2C4AD087==========--
