Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
At 11:38 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Tim 'The Heretic' Bass wrote:
On the other hand, address space allocated by a registry (US NIC, European RIPE, etc.) and announced by an ISP do not 'punch holes' in classless blocks and were assigned to the user. Furthermore, there will *never* be a 100 percent efficient hierarchical routing infrastructure; and the atmosphere to create it is destructive and counterproductive.
I agree that address allocations that originated from the various registries pose a different problem, for which there is no clear-cut solution. I imagine that the various ISPs will decide how to handle it themselves, as some already do. Again, we're [collectively] not trying to dictate address allocation or routing policy. What we *are* trying to do is document a Best Current Practices procedural issue, which can be used as reference. If some organizations wish to use it as a basis for policy, that's fine too. I'm not naive enough to believe that this draft, as a BCP, will be viewed as the end-all-be-all policy doctrine, and that if you as an ISP or end-system network do not adhere to the letter of the document you will be flogged with a wet noodle. Bah. This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no longer a luxury that can be expected. Yes, it may be unpopular. Does it actually represent 'Best Current Practice'? I believe it does. Should it instead be moved ahead as 'Informational'? I don't believe so, as Curtis and others do, since it would then give the appearance of levity. - paul
{ continuing Paul,Tim .... }
This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no longer a luxury that can be expected.
Hmmm. In actuality, there is nothing 'simple' about the concept of address ownership and address portability; and to label the issue 'simple' is to obfuscate a multidimensional issue. Anyone who as been either in the middle of the CIDR-renumbering debate or enjoying from the sidelines is fully aware that the issues are not just 'harmlessly forwarding meaningless documents', so let's 'just do it and forget about it'.... The fact remains that there are numerous other possibilities; such as fixing DNS and introducing NAT technology at the NAP level that allow aggregation at the provider level of the hierarchy and not at the user level. This imposes, however, the problem and solution on the providers and not the end-user; which BTW is the correct approach, and it is a drain of energy and resources to continue down this 'beat up the end user' path choosen by the WG in question. So we oscillate between 'complexity and simplicity'. The issues are complex and controversial on a full moon ; simple and clear another phase. This should clearly signal a red flag when protagonists of renumbering change position based on the audience and phase of the moon. Best Regards, Tim 'The Heretic' +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tim Bass | | | Principal Network Systems Engineer | "... the fates of men are bonded | | The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | one to the other by the cement | | | of wisdom." | | http://www.silkroad.com/ | Milan Kundera | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
participants (2)
-
Paul Ferguson -
Tim Bass