The Internic is the sole and ultimate assigning entity of IP space,
Ummm, no. RIPE-NCC and APNIC also assign address space as regional registries, CANET, JPNIC, KRNIC, and AUNIC/Telstra assign space as national registries. One might claim the IANA has the ultimate responsibility regarding address space, but this is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.
and Sprint specifically rejected any support for me or my provider in obtaining at least a /20 assignment from the Internic,
Why didn't you obtain the /20 from Sprint?
I was given this /22 assignment (while continuous usage of the link ensures this space will be used up in about 3-4 weeks, with /26 assignments going to BelCom's leased line customers) even though the Internic knew better about necessary route aggregation.
I'm confused. You were given a /22 by InterNIC which is (presumably) provider independent, and which included a statement from InterNIC that says that routing is not guaranteed (which should, of course, be obvious) and you seem to be claiming they didn't understand about route aggregation. I would assume InterNIC encouraged you to obtain your address space from your service provider (Sprint) so your routes could be aggregated in your service provider's block. Are you saying that Sprint refused to allocate the space you required?
I consider it extremely hostile from Sean Doran and hence Sprint to suddenly
Sean has been talking about this for at least 9 months.
come and announce filtering of just those networks they are announcing on their own, ENCOURAGING OTHER NSPs TO DO LIKEWISE, bypass the ultimate arbitrator (Internic) ,
No. InterNIC is only the ultimate arbitrator of who a particular address is delegated to within the blocks that InterNIC has authority. This has absolutely nothing to do with routability of those addresses. There is no ultimate arbitrator for routability -- it is a cooperative effort by all service providers. Due to routers falling over, some service providers are not interested in being as cooperative as they once were.
I can only strongly discourage the implementation of the prefix filtering for prefixes longer than /18 in 206.* through 239.*
What is your suggestion to reduce the routing overload? Regards, -drc
The Internic is the sole and ultimate assigning entity of IP space, Ummm, no. RIPE-NCC and APNIC also assign address space as regional registries, CANET, JPNIC, KRNIC, and AUNIC/Telstra assign space as national registries. One might claim the IANA has the ultimate responsibility regarding address space, but this is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.
I have not followed most of this addressing thread, most of it seems quite weird anyway. I sure agree that alot of it is irrelevant to the discussion, and the right thing to do is rather to focus on how to evolve things right and gracefully and scalable in the future. This may have been said before, my apologies if I am repeating things, but this ownership and IANA and InterNIC takeover stuff and so is totally distorted it seems. Prior to the mid-80's (when TCP-IP was on its way out and to be succeeded by GOSSIP, and could never top DECNET and SNA and Novell anyway) the IP address space was in the playpen of the United States Department of Defense, simply for the reasons that they designed this IP protocol toy for their purposes, and had all the rights in the world to do with its bit space whatever they felt like. Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds were the two ending up under ARPA contract to assign addresses and other numbers (IP protocol, TCP port, whatever). ARPA also created the IAB and the GADS, to help them with expertise advise relative to their project, the GADS was then split into the IETF and the IRTF (I think they were initially called something like INENG and INARC (engineering and architecture), though). With this, and some responsibilities getting fuzzier (like NSF jumping in and ejecting TCP/IP into the real world) at some point of time Jon/Joyce's roles got more formally called the IANA. I don't know when the term exactly came up, and what the rationale was, but I am pretty sure that things were still in ARPA's sandbox then, and I am pretty sure IANA was created as an IAB function for ARPA. But ARPA was not in a position to do all these assignments and work (ain't exactly 10 year out high risk research any more), so especially NSF helped out funding the (ARPA) NIC (then at SRI). NSF was the logical choice, as it brought the IP networking to the masses, so it seemed logical that NSF become responsible for assignment for the masses, and publicly had a competition for the InterNIC, which was then won by three different parties for three different function. Of course, nobody wanted to piss ARPA or especially Jon and Joyce off (they both are excellent people), so why rock the boat about IANA terminology, besides, they were still involved, assigned lots of (other) numbers, and were a good resource to help the InterNIC. ARPA and other agencies were quite well aware and I think in line with the InterNIC creation. About every several months this argument flared up about who owns the address space in variety of camps for the last many years. Always winded down after a while, as people figure they have better things to do, and things were kinda working anyway. Guess that was prior to the Internet explosion in the last two years or so, though. In the meantime, yeah, formally I guess one would claim that the Internet address space is the personal property of the IANA instrument of the United States Department of Defense, if that is what you like. I would prefer to think that the Internet evolved so much over the last ten years or so into the public realm, that the address and naming spaces have become public property. Instead of bitching about the InterNIC, NSF, ARPA, IANA, whoever, you guys should thank them for how far they got things driven, and whet they fostered and allowed to transition to the international private sector. Don't get me wrong, I had my own misgiving at times with the responsiveness of the InterNIC at times, but life just is hard on an exponential curve, especially if the incoming resources/revenue stream does not follow the curve. The self-sustaining nature of the InterNIC was already built into it when NSF solicited proposals for it, just read the damn thing. $50 is not a problem for a commercial company that has all the other miscellaneous costs of having equipment and connecting it to the Internet and wanting to get marketing leverage out of their www.company.com advertisement material, unless you make a problem out of it, though it is an annoyance big enough to hopefully keep alot of trash out, and it gives the United States Federal Government an opportunity to even let go more of its children. Then again, the children seem in puberty and like to bitch.
On Fri, 22 Sep 1995, David R Conrad wrote:
I'm confused. You were given a /22 by InterNIC which is (presumably) provider independent, and which included a statement from InterNIC that says that routing is not guaranteed (which should, of course, be obvious) and you seem to be claiming they didn't understand about route aggregation. I would assume InterNIC encouraged you to obtain your address space from your service provider (Sprint) so your routes could be aggregated in your service provider's block. Are you saying that Sprint refused to allocate the space you required?
That last sentence is based on an assumption not a known fact.
No. InterNIC is only the ultimate arbitrator of who a particular address is delegated to within the blocks that InterNIC has authority. This has absolutely nothing to do with routability of those addresses. There is no ultimate arbitrator for routability -- it is a cooperative effort by all service providers. Due to routers falling over, some service providers are not interested in being as cooperative as they once were.
I can only strongly discourage the implementation of the prefix filtering for prefixes longer than /18 in 206.* through 239.*
What is your suggestion to reduce the routing overload?
I think the real problem here is that Kazakhstan should have a block of addresses with a short enough prefix to guarantee routing and these addresses should have been allocated out of this block. The obvious solution to this immediate problem is to guarantee routing for the long prefix until the event in Kazakhstan is over and then to think hard about what to do about similar cases that are not for short term events. After all, this case is precisely the kind of thing Sean wanted to get aired in open discussion and it is obvious that any solution to the "number of routes" problem has to deal with these kinds of issues as well. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
Are you saying that Sprint refused to allocate the space you required? That last sentence is based on an assumption not a known fact.
?? It was a question.
I think the real problem here is that Kazakhstan should have a block of addresses with a short enough prefix to guarantee routing and these addresses should have been allocated out of this block.
No. Political geography has little to do with the topology of the Internet, thus allocating to a country doesn't correspond to topological addressing. One might argue that a service provider in Kazakhstan should have a short prefix, but a similar argument can be made for any service provider.
The obvious solution to this immediate problem is to guarantee routing for the long prefix until the event in Kazakhstan is over and then to think hard about what to do about similar cases that are not for short term events.
Right, except you can *never* guarantee routing -- it is a cooperative effort among service providers and some service providers may choose not to cooperate. However, the organization wishing to have the long prefix routed may pay the routing service provider(s) extra for the special handling necessary to insure the highest probability of routability to the sites the organization wants to reach. But this gets somewhat complicated. I would think an easier solution would be to simply get a block from the upstream ISP... Regards, -drc
participants (3)
-
David R Conrad
-
hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu
-
Michael Dillon