nanog mailing list archives
Re: classful routes redux
From: Per Heldal <heldal () eml cc>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:29:18 +0100
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:48 +0000, Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:
With no shortage of resources (in this case AS-numbers and IP-addresses) we wouldn't have this discussion. Then nobody would care how an organisation is using the resources that are allocated to them.Thankfully there is no shortage of IP addresses and there will be no shortage of AS numbers. The factory has already ramped up production of IPv6 addresses and warehouses are full. Designs for the new version AS numbers are just about past engineering review and the factory is ready to begin production.Nobody is questioning the advantages of globally unique identifiers. However, administrative resources for the internet are primarily ment to serve the public.And the public *IS* being served by the diversity of applications and networks which use the Internet Protocol. The public is served regardless of whether the device is on a private network, the global Internet or some other internet.There is technically no need for these networks to share resources with the global internet if they have no intention to ever connect to, or communicates with nodes on, the global network.This is where you are wrong. Primarily this is because firewalls make it possible for organizations to run a network which connects to BOTH the global Internet and one or more private Internets without allowing any traffic to transit between these networks or any routing information to leak between these networks. Nevertheless, the network in the middle needs to use globally unique addresses and both RFC 1918 and RFC 2050 explicitly account for such networks. If a network interconnects with other networks it is *NOT& a private network and therefore it requires globally unique identifiers.
... which is why I specifically said "no intention to ever connect to, or communicates with nodes on, the global network". In which case overlaps in adressblocks are irrelevant, as are any mention of NAT and firewalls as there is no connection (direct or indirect) between the networks.
Wrong. RIRs have no authority outside the resources they've been assigned from the global pool, and certainly not over networks not connected to the global internet. RIR's are (as anybody else) free to take part in the process of developing global policies.RIRs have no authority over networks connected to the global Internet either. RIRs are part of a system of self-regulation, not government regulation, and therefore have no authority other than the consent of their members.
Authority wasn't the right word perhaps ;) "Operating context" may be a better term.
Anybody is free to build their own separate networks and use IP-technology as they want, but internet registries have no obligation to administer their resources.You seem to think that the Internet was created before there were nascent RIRs managing internet numbering.
Nope, when I started networking there was no global network worth connecting to and sna, decnet or ipx nodes worldwide outnumbered ip by 1000 to one or more. RFC1918 wasn't even on the horizon and there were lots of ad-hoc built IP networks using randomly selected addresses. Internet governance was handled by handful of people in IANA.
It was the other way around. Right from the beginning when IP, the internetwork protocol, was designed, there was an understanding of the need to COORDINATE numbering resources. After a while, so many of the young internetworks connected together that people started to think and speak of one single global Internet. This is a nice result but IP does not belong to *ONLY* those organizations who connect to the global Internet. It is more general than that.
Sure, and that's why you need to separate between the technology administered through the IETF and *one* particular implementation of it which happen to be coordinated by a hierarchy of organisations under the "ICANN-umbrella". Those who don't want to take part in this hierarchy or communicate with it's network are free to organise their own in whatever way they please.
Even though the Internet is the major revenue source for most of the companies in which NANOG members work, these companies also operate important IP networks which are *NOT* the Internet. It is important to remember this, especially when talking about ARIN and other RIRs, ICANN, the IETF, etc. None of these organizations serve the global Internet exclusively. They serve the body of protocols which make the Internet, and other internets, possible.
technology != implementation //Per
Current thread:
- Re: classful routes redux, (continued)
- Re: classful routes redux Russ White (Nov 04)
- Re: classful routes redux Joseph S D Yao (Nov 04)
- Re: classful routes redux Michael . Dillon (Nov 07)
- Re: classful routes redux Joe Abley (Nov 07)
- Re: classful routes redux Stephen Sprunk (Nov 07)
- Message not available
- Re: classful routes redux Henk Uijterwaal (Nov 07)
- Re: classful routes redux Joseph S D Yao (Nov 07)
- Re: classful routes redux Michael . Dillon (Nov 08)
- Re: classful routes redux Per Heldal (Nov 08)
- Re: classful routes redux Michael . Dillon (Nov 08)
- Re: classful routes redux Per Heldal (Nov 08)
- Re: classful routes redux Michael . Dillon (Nov 08)
- Re: classful routes redux Stephen Sprunk (Nov 08)
- Re: classful routes redux Joseph S D Yao (Nov 09)
- Message not available
- IPv6 in a current defaultless SFP ISP John Dupuy (Nov 08)
- Re: classful routes redux Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 04)
- Re: classful routes redux Pekka Savola (Nov 04)
- Re: classful routes redux Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: classful routes redux Geoff Huston (Nov 04)
- Re: classful routes redux Randy Bush (Nov 04)
- Re: classful routes redux Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 04)