Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
On Jan 25, 14:46, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
Subject: Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations ...
It's the other way round: SPRINT should tell his customers he can't guarantee 100% global Internet connectivity because he disagrees with the current address allocation policy of the IANA/InterNIC/RIPE NCC/AP-NIC.
Would you assume that anyone whose address allocation follow "the current address allocation policy of the IANA/InterNIC/RIPE NCC/AP-NIC" is guaranteed 100% global Internet connectivity ?
No one can assume anything in this fast moving world, but at least I assume the last A of 'IANA' means 'Authority' and not 'Anarchy'. If the aim is global connectivity there must be some common rules everybody should follow. If someone has problems with them he can try to convince the authority/community to change them, but in a civilized way, without trying to impose anything to the rest of the world. Miguel __________________ __ ______________________ /_/ Miguel A. Sanz __ __ Email: miguel.sanz@rediris.es RedIRIS/CSIC /_/ RedIRIS /_/ Tel: + 34 1 5855152 Serrano 142 __ Fax: + 34 1 5855146 E-28006 Madrid /_/ SPAIN NETWORK MANAGER ____________ Spanish Academic & Research Network ___________________________
Miguel,
Would you assume that anyone whose address allocation follow "the current address allocation policy of the IANA/InterNIC/RIPE NCC/AP-NIC" is guaranteed 100% global Internet connectivity ?
No one can assume anything in this fast moving world, but at least I assume the last A of 'IANA' means 'Authority' and not 'Anarchy'.
IANA is the *Naming and Addressing* Authority. But to the best of my knowledge the IANA's authority is not sufficient to guarantee Internet-wide connectivity.
If the aim is global connectivity there must be some common rules everybody should follow. If someone has problems with them he can try to convince the authority/community to change them, but in a civilized way, without trying to impose anything to the rest of the world.
What do you think should be covered by the "common rules everybody should follow", and who should be setting these rules ? Yakov.
IANA is the *Naming and Addressing* Authority. But to the best of my knowledge the IANA's authority is not sufficient to guarantee Internet-wide connectivity.
There is no authority any more. May have been in the ARPAnet, *may* be in the NSFNET days. The IANA/InterNIC thing is essentially a coordination function that assumes that everyone plays and in result gives a good probability of global uniqueness in varieties of assignments. If the policies are not being accepted, the non-accepters will weight global interconnectivity against needing to provide services in a perhaps isolated environment. Many will choose global connectivity, some others may not. Example. A few weeks back or so I needed an AS number, but the InterNIC came back, after I filled out their form, with what I considered unreasonable additional requests, and I thought screw it, I don't need this, I just pick a number. The setup was semi-experimenal anyway (some routing research, but connected), and if someone complains I can fix it later, or send them after the InterNIC. So, the coordination function has failed there, and there was certainly no authority involved. I liked Dennis' note about picking reasonable targets, btw, and going for those somehow, may be doing "limits by declaration," so we find out what's reasonable, rather than dwelling in doom or no-doom about address spaces and so. That something that could be done at the NANOG meeting, with some email in advance and after?
participants (3)
-
hwb＠upeksa.sdsc.edu -
miguel.sanz＠rediris.es -
Yakov Rekhter