nanog mailing list archives
Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () mail iucc ac il>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:01:51 +0200
At 08:14 PM 29-11-04 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
In the decentralized world of the Internet, we have a bigger problem in that we do not have a clear entity that impose the necessary regulatory pressures and there is no commercial pressure. All we can do is to ask people to be good Internet citizens and to act locally for the global good. The challenge, of course, is that this is in almost no one's immediate best interest.My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for national providers and folks that care about optimal routing, but it's the only way that I can see that will allow the Internet to continue to operate over the long term.
Before going to the UN (and I assume you mean the ITU), I would prefer to see ICANN+IANA+RIRs do the necessary work involved. That means that in addition to allocating IP blocks to ISPs and end customers, to also police said resources. It is always mentioned that IP blocks are not "bought" or "owned" but "leased" out by the RIRs. If an ISP is polluting the commons, then the RIR that allocated the IP resource should first contact the customer. If the customer doesn't mend their ways, then the RIR should be free to start announcing that IP block and static route it to some RIR blackhole. That would definitely get the attention of the wayward ISP/customer. Of course all this would have to be backed up by IAB+IETF as well, but I think we should learn to police ourselves before we ask for the UN/ITU to do it for us.
-Hank
Current thread:
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI, (continued)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Tony Li (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Robert E . Seastrom (Nov 29)
- RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Scott Morris (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Hank Nussbacher (Nov 30)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Nov 30)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Daniel Senie (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI John Kristoff (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Nils Ketelsen (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 25)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Chris Kuethe (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 19)