Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:24:01 -0700

Hi Eric,

|I also, perhaps incorrectly, perceive that you don't
|seem to realize that the difference between ISPs is trivial when
|compared to the extreme differences between end users. I state that any
|model that treats all end users as equivalent is inherently broken and
|any Internet solution based on such a faulty notion is unlikely to
|succeed because it does not recognize reality.

I'm failing to see what's relevant here.  Of course I don't see all users as
equivalent or all ISPs as equivalent.  Arguing about their relative
differences doesn't seem to shed any particular insight into the routing
architecture.  

Treating all end users as equivalent isn't my position, it's simply an
observation about the behavior of many ISPs when it comes to PI.  The
reality is that the sales person will simply accept PI from just about
anyone.  Thus, trying to get any meaningful architectural difference in the
treatment of different end-sites is going to be problematic at best.

|When we talk about PI versus PA space we are really talking about
|whether network addresses are owned or leased. We are also 
|talking about
|business dependencies. You can look up our public PI address space and
|see its scope. What I want you to realize is that when we 
|became part of
|the Internet we owned our own addresses -- that is the model that we
|bought into. Certain forces are trying to re-define that model, trying
|to compel us to lease addresses and to become dependent upon outside
|ISPs that are smaller than us. How dare they!! Who are they to try to
|put our business at risk? Whether they realize it or not, the new model
|that they are trying to foist upon us resembles blackmail -- 
|switch ISPs
|and it will cost you an arm and a leg. This is unacceptable. The PI
|space is a non-negotiable fact. Any model that does not accept PI for
|large end users for *both* IPv4 and IPv6 is inherently broken. 

So you say.  Yet your 'business' model when extended simply puts the entire
Internet at risk.  You'll pardon us if we do something else then.

|Concerning your equation that PI equals NAT, I can only say Bah! (or
|whatever the English equivalent is for the German doch!). That is
|ridiculous. (I.e., it is a function of the large multiplicity of
|different PI spaces, not the existence of PI itself -- 2000 
|different PI
|spaces in IPv6 will not harm the Internet.) However, let's pretend that
|it is accurate. Given that, then NATs are ****vastly**** preferable to
|losing PI. Vastly. Incomparably so.

2000 different PI spaces are irrelevant.  In fact, the v4 swamp is already
much bigger than that today.  The real problem is that 2^48 PI spaces are
what will happen if nothing changes.  If there is no end site renumbering to
get out of this mode, then the only way to make that addressing aggregatable
is to translate it into an alternate space.  That makes it effectively NAT.

Tony

--
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