RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
I think you intentionally make confusion for everyone. ----Your---------- This is wrong. The Internet Protocol (IP) was not invented only to create the public Internet. It was created so that all networks, that want to interconnect with another network, have an internetworking protocol that does the job. The public Internet is the biggest internetwork but it is not the only one. Globally unique addresses are required so that a network can interconnect with other networks without renumbering. --------------- Nobody, including me, prevents you or someone else to using IP addresses! The term "Globally unique addresses" is useful if you mean PUBLIC part of the network. In my own network I can use the address I like, not involving the RIPE or any other organizations and rules. If I want to interconnect with another network I should agree with the network only, not with all the world. ----Your---------- The RIRs are not there to serve the Internet. They are there to serve the users of IP technology which is a bigger group than just the Internet. It is OK for RIPE to provide services that are only needed on the Internet, but it is not nice if RIPE would stop providing services to IP users who are not connected to the Internet. --------------- Not at all: "The RIPE NCC is an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical co-ordination in its service region. The most prominent activity of the RIPE NCC is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in the RIPE NCC service region." The users, that not connected to the Internet, are not in scope of the RIPE. IP is not the only network technology. And the network is not the only activity in the World.
The term "Globally unique addresses" is useful if you mean PUBLIC part of the network. In my own network I can use the address I like, not involving the RIPE or any other organizations and rules. If I want to interconnect with another network I should agree with the network only, not with all the world.
Let me describe a real situation that we have with some of our customers. One of several IP networks that we operate is called Radianz. This network has PoPs in 120 countries and has over 3000 customers connected to it, many of them with multiple connections in different cities. This network is an internetwork because it interconnects the networks of 3000 other organizations. In order to function, this network requires globally unique IP addresses to be used for each of its member networks even though it is not connected to the Internet. The Radianz network is not a private network. It is also not a public network. But it is a SHARED network just like the public Internet. Historically, IANA has always allocated globally unique IP addresses to organizations on this type of shared network. When RFC 2050 was written by authors from the RIRs, including RIPE, they included this text: the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still requires a globally unique IP address. The organization should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. If it is determined this is not possible, they can be issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. Remember that I said "It is OK for RIPE to provide services that are only needed on the Internet, but it is not nice if RIPE would stop providing services to IP users who are not connected to the Internet.". The Radianz global network is not the only internetwork of this type. There are at least 3 other global ones that I have come across, and there are probably many regional ones as well. A very large number of organizations depend on these internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand this and have no intention of changing the rules to reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. --Michael Dillon
Hi, On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03:16AM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
A very large number of organizations depend on these internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand this and have no intention of changing the rules to reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet.
Let me second that. This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that need unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. We have had customers in the past that needed unique IPv4 space, to be able to run their internal VPN networks without address clashes - and I think this is a very very reasonable reason to request globally unique address space. So did the RIPE NCC, and assigned IPv4 PI to them. Since we have enough address space in IPv6, this whole discussion is a bit moot - what would we gain if we change RIR operations to "only assign space that is required to be publically routed"? With the current rate that IPv6 /32s and /48s are handed out, we'll need a few 100 years to fill up the first 1/8 of the IPv6 address space (FP 001) - and if we notice in 50 years that our model is indeed too wastive, we can try again with FP 010 or one of the other 6/8 of the available IPv6 address space. Prefixes that *are* routed on the public Internet are likely going to be a bigger issue (due to limited routing table slots) than prefixes that are *not* routed. There's 500 million /32s in FP001, and if 99.9% of those disappears into hiding, we still have 500.000 potential routing table entries to worry about... (very rough math, neglecting more specifics and /48s, but those wouldn't change the point - non-routed space is not our problem here). So - can we please get back to somewhat more relevant topics? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
poty＠iiat.ru