[75981] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Nov 29 12:12:12 2004
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:09:08 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>,
"'North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20041129152003.GB37653@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========9944D3CEC1B405BC233E==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
> I don't think this statement is true on its face. Regardless, if
> it is true the end users have no one to blame but themselves.
>
Agreed... Although I think ARIN could do better outreach to the broader
community. I think there are perceptions out there that differ from=20
reality,
and, blaming people for their perceptions is never effective at bringing
them into the process. What is needed is outreach and education.
> The policy process (at least for the past several years) has been
> an open, public process. You don't have to be a member to show up
> and make policy. The big ISP's do not dominate the discussions.
>
This is absolutely true. I can vouch for it from the meetings I have=20
attended
in the last two years, and, I will say that I have watched ARIN become
progressively LESS ISP centric.
> So, I don't know where your statement comes from. When end sites
> can get a /22 directly from ARIN so they can multi-home, I wonder
> how we are locking end-sites into their providers address space.
> Since you can get a /22 with a 50% justification you only have to
> show a need for 512 IP's to be provider independent. I would love to
> know how that is an unreasonable barrier.
>
Perhaps it is because they can't get any v6 allocation from ARIN unless =
they
claim they want to go into the LIR business and not be an end site and
propose a plan to assign addresses to 200 additional organizations.
> So, it seems like in IPv4 land we're making it quite easy for
> end-sites to get PI space. It also seems like, even with end sites
> getting PI space, and everyone announcing cutouts of provider blocks
> we don't have a global routing table that's too large. We're at
> ~140,000 routes now, and that's with the mess of the swamp and other
> poor past decisions floating around.
>
I will point out, however, that if the boundary moves to /24, there's not
much difference between the allocation policy of the past that created the
swamp and current allocation policy. I'm not saying I think this is a bad
thing (I don't). I think that CIDR was important in its day, and, I think
it is important today. However, I think that now, CIDR is only important
in so far as it promotes aggregation where it makes sense. Deaggregating
where it matters is a valid and necessary thing.
># 3 Drop the absolutely stupid notion that there should be no PI space.
> There will be PI space, either by people using ULA for that purposes,
> or by the RIR's changing this stupidity after they get ahold of it.
>
They have ahold of it now.
Owen
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========9944D3CEC1B405BC233E==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBq1e0n5zKWQ/iqj0RAhNTAJ9Oydz0ILiBQ2SJ/PLutgtObpcY8ACfZWup
RyWlDr3H0xkI1pnPsIFp2rY=
=Mp+n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========9944D3CEC1B405BC233E==========--
