nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv4 address exchange
From: Jeff Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:47:31 -0400
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:
And yet, Ron has recently raged on this list about hijacked prefixes used for spamming, so clearly "no transit network" is inaccurate.
I try to qualify my remarks when necessary. In this case, I wrote "except by act of omission/mistake," and you evidently did not read that carefully, or have construed "transit network" to mean any two-bit ISP with one BGP customer (or shell company downstream of them), rather than serious, global networks.
Regardless, for sake of argument, let's assume ARIN refused to recognize the Microsoft/Nortel sale and Microsoft deploys a few prefixes of those 666K addresses for (say) new MSN services. Do you think ISPs, particularly the larger ones, all over the world would refuse to accept those announcements (especially when their call centers start getting calls from irate customers who aren't able to gain access to MSN services)?
ARIN has very carefully allowed our industry to largely avoid this choice, as InterNIC did before. Their methods have sometimes been objectionable, but the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.
1) no "regulator" at all, thus BGP anarchy (we came surprisingly close to that in the 1990s at least once)And the solution to that "BGP anarchy" (by which I assume you mean a flood of long prefixes)
No, I mean if ARIN had lost its perceived or actual legitimacy, and networks really were able to "permanently hijack" whatever IPs they decided to claim for themselves, we would have had anarchy at worst, or more likely, transit-free ISPs with commercial interest in customers not having portable address space controlling all allocations of portable addresses. This almost happened.
We're talking about IPv4 addresses which will (soon) be unavailable
I'm not confused about that. If it were up to me, I would simply freeze all IPv4 allocations immediately. I do not think the current sale-and-transfer scheme is good. I also don't *care* that much, because the more screwed up the "legacy IPv4 Internet" becomes, and the faster it gets there, the better it is for my business. I'm pretty sure I am not alone in this thinking. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address exchange, (continued)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Owen DeLong (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Chris Grundemann (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Randy Bush (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Benson Schliesser (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Rubens Kuhl (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Randy Bush (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Benson Schliesser (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Owen DeLong (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeff Wheeler (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange David Conrad (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeff Wheeler (Apr 18)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange David Conrad (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange David Conrad (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeff Wheeler (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeff Wheeler (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange David Conrad (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)