Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:03:42 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>

    > Certain forces are trying to re-define that model, trying to compel us
    > to lease addresses and to become dependent upon outside ISPs

What on earth are you talking about?

    > Any model that does not accept PI for large end users ... is inherently
    > broken.

Everyone with a clue already understands that very large users (e.g. Boeing,
the USG, etc) are effectively their own ISPs, and no matter what labels you
want to apply, for technical reasons all large-scale entities (be they ISPs
or large users) are effectively in a separate class.

So you don't need to keep repeating the stunningly and stupefyingly obvious.

When we talk about things like supporting 'provider independence and
multi-homing', we are talking about providing them for the myriad of small-
and medium-sized users - who are the vast majority of network users, as
opposed to the hundred or so really large ones (who don't concern us, because
they are effectively ISPs).

Now, if you could bend your brain to the problem of how to handle the _small_
users, that _would_ be helpful and useful. What is your sugestion for how to
handle them? Are you suggesting 'PI' (I _hate_ that &^%@&^%$ term - I much
prefer 'connectivity dependent', to make it plain that it's a technical
issue, not a policy one) for them too? If not, what do you suggest?

    > any model that treats all end users as equivalent is inherently broken

What's your suggestion for how to differentiate between various classes of
users? Policy-based ones don't seem to cut it - people will just complain
that the dividing line is arbitrary. As Tony and I have been discussing,
economic-based ones such as charging for routing-table entries don't seem to
be getting any traction either. What do you suggest?

    > NATs are ****vastly**** preferable to losing PI.

This seems to agree with both Tony and I that, failing the addition of a new
namespace to facilitate provider independence and multi-homiing for _small_
users, there will continue to be a profound structural incentive for NAT. So
how are you disagreeing with Tony and I about this?

 	Noel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg