Re: IAB and "private" numbering

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:40:20PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tony Tauber wrote:
> > The registries (including IANA as their root) should provide just
> > that, a place to register the use of number resources to avoid collisions.
> > I'm thinking that "private" number spaces should probably be used
> > advisedly if not deprecated outright.
>
> RIR's are taking heat (or some finger pointing atleast) for allocations
> that don't appear in the public route table. There are many reasons why

i rant, yet again.  

        what is this "the" public routing table?  where does one
        get it?  in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it.
        i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet.
        or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered 
        imaginations of marketing droids... and the virus is more virulent
        than the H5N1 strain.  Note that it affects normally sane engineers
        who KNOW better.

        back in the SRInic days, there was the "connected" and "unconnected"
        databases.  ... to mark prefixes that were connected to the ARPAnet
        and those that were in "private" networks, like CSnet, NSFnet, and
        enterprise networks.  Tony is right in this respect, RFC1918 space
        is a feeble attempt to get around/past the lack of address space
        that became apparent in IPv4 ... with IPv6, there is no real 
        reason to try and recreate private space (leaving aside renumbering)

        IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP
        protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing
        is the right course.  every other attempt to split the assignements
        into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.

        I am unconvinced that it can be made to work successfully in the
        future.

        
> > I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses of
> > number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
>
> I'm curious where the 'non-legitimate' use came from? (or why the
> perception is that the only legitimate use is 'public Internet', having a
> nutjob internal network at work with all manner of kookiness built into
> it I know of atleast 1 large network that has parts not routed or
> available in the 'public internet', previous jobs give other good
> examples as well.)

        amen.

--bill