>> and where RFC 1597 might be a problem, as there is no coordination who >> has picked something from RFC 1597 (perhaps a new task for last-resorts >> to coordination the national use of RFC 1597), then it does happen that >HELP! So we suddenly make -private- address space semi-public, then >we might just as well start allocating the current address space a second >time. Perhaps you don't have big companies in Switzerland, whatever do I know about Switzerland. But there are cases when Big Company connect to a small outside company, providing something special and as Small Company don't connect to Internet they must use RFC 1597 and eventually Small-2 has been told the same story and use the same first numbers from RFC 1597, but when Big Company want to have a link to Small-2 as well, this becomes a problem. Simon, you don't seem to understand the real problem. Coordination has to be done on every possible level. Personally I don't care whatsoever about those that we force to use private address space, but they will eventually run into problems, so beeing last-resort we ouht to take our responsibilty and coordinate thing that are currently in a mess. --Bjorn
Bjorn There is no such thing as national rfc1597 coordination. Read 1597 again, or read the infamous IAB guidance in rfc1841 (if I have the right number). this is simply NOT AN OPTION. sorry to shout but you have seriously misunderstood if you think that 1597 needs coordination If two 1597 using private nets are merged then they just have to renumber whichever subnets overlap. that's it. Brian
Perhaps you don't have big companies in Switzerland, whatever do I know about Switzerland. But there are cases when Big Company connect to a small outside company, providing something special and as Small Company don't connect to Internet they must use RFC 1597 and eventually Small-2 has been told the same story and use the same first numbers from RFC 1597, but when Big Company want to have a link to Small-2 as well, this becomes a problem.
If you'd followed the IETF list you would know that I made a comment pointing these problems out a -long- time ago, in particular from the point of collisions RFC-1597 is substantially worse than picking addresses at random (and no better than the time honored tradition of using addresses from Sun).
Simon, you don't seem to understand the real problem. Coordination has to be done on every possible level. Personally I don't care whatsoever about those that we force to use private address space, but they will eventually run into problems, so beeing last-resort we ouht to take our responsibilty and coordinate thing that are currently in a mess.
Private addres space is -private-: useful for networking all the power meters in Switzerland and similar sensible things, it cannot be an ersatz public address space. In your example: where do you stop? What happens if Big Company wants to connect to companies in Denmark and Norway (and Switzerland and Germany and France and Italy .......)? You ARE creating a second public address space. Simon
poole@eunet.ch writes:
Perhaps you don't have big companies in Switzerland, whatever do I know about Switzerland. But there are cases when Big Company connect to a small outside company, providing something special and as Small Company don't connect to Internet they must use RFC 1597 and eventually Small-2 has been told the same story and use the same first numbers from RFC 1597, but when Big Company want to have a link to Small-2 as well, this becomes a problem.
If you'd followed the IETF list you would know that I made a comment pointing these problems out a -long- time ago, in particular from the point of collisions RFC-1597 is substantially worse than picking addresses at random (and no better than the time honored tradition of using addresses from Sun).
There is a serious omission in RFC1597: We did not recommend that people who forsee external connection requirements should choose their RFC1597 addresses at random. We just assumed that people would be clever enough to figure that out by themselves. This will be fixed in the next version of the RFC. However we did say: Groups of organisations which foresee a big need for mutual communication can consider forming an enterprise by designing a common addressing plan supported by the necessary organisational arrangements like a registry. If they choose to have Bjorn do that for them it is perfectly OK. However Bjorn should be *very* clear about the fact that this address space is still "private" and that there is no guarantee of uniqueness outside the set of organisations participating in this voluntary scheme! Of course the guarantee of uniqueness from public address space remains. Can we close this side discussion? Daniel
Bjorn Eriksen <ber@sunet.se> writes:
Simon, you don't seem to understand the real problem. Coordination has to be done on every possible level. Personally I don't care whatsoever about those that we force to use private address space, but they will eventually run into problems, so beeing last-resort we ouht to take our responsibilty and coordinate thing that are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ currently in a mess. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--Bjorn
I fully agree. That's the spirit of the Internet. Things do not work automagically. People that think that way are strongly necessary. It's likely that last resort registries (places where to apply for unique non-provider addresses) will disappear. But I think that some guidance and coordination should stay. And the RIPE-NCC alone will probably be not sufficient for this task in the fast growing European Internet. Blasco ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito@nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ----------
participants (5)
-
Antonio_Blasco Bonito -
Bjorn Eriksen -
Brian Carpenter CERN-CN -
Daniel Karrenberg -
poole＠eunet.ch