But if they have a /24 they don't have to.
If everyone who has been allocated /24 network by their provider moved somewhere else - then the routing tables for NZ would be considerable larger and more difficult to manage.
And they are a huge mess now.
What this group is attempting to do is impose costs on the end users only if they try to move ISPs.
Yeah! We are money hungry b'stards, and while I'm at it, who hasn't paid their `network uptime' protection money. =) What we are trying to do here is acknowledge that the way the NZGATE addresses were issued was, while appropriate at the time, a problem. Now that customers are taking large prefix networks and expecting them to be portable between ISP's we have a problem. Rather than just choose to ignore the problem and hope that `she'll be right', we have choosen to try to do something about it. Hence Joe's proposal.
It's a great way to lock up your clients.
You are totally correct. Another good way would be to make them sign fixed length contracts. There are many good ways to lock clients into ISP's but lets leave them to the marketing droids. This is not what this discussion is about. It is VERY sad that this IP problem has commercial and political implications. If it didn't then it would make the whole situation a lot easier to deal with. As Chris has said, the best way to solve the NZGATE issue is to force everyone to renumber out of provider based IP addresses immediately. This is however not going to please a lot of people, so we are looking at a compromise.
There is no technical reason to make users renumber when they move
Again you are correct. The best situation is to make them renumber now. How about.... ``If you move then you should atleast consider renumbering at the same time'' Pretty washy I know - but just wait. ``If you request any additional IP addresses from an ISP in the future then you must return all of your NZGATE addresses and renumber'' This means that a client can move ISP's as much as they like, so their is no commercial advantage being levered by the ISP's. But should the customer decide that they want to make some network changes (like adding some more networks) then it's about time that they joined the '90's and numbered with provider-based IP's. It would be like me going to APNIC and saying; ``Hi - I have 63 non-contiguous /24's and I'd like one more /24 please'' They would tell me to get knotted. But if I went and said ``Hi - I have 63 non-contiguous /24's that I'd like to return to you. Oh and can I have a /18 please.'' They would say Sure!
Importantly, the current proposal is not workable. The first client whose renumbering exercise is expensive will likely seek an injuction against any provider attempting to enforce these ideas.
Hence `resonable terms', for example, giving someone three months to /renumber a 22 network isn't unacceptable is it?
Do people, when they move house, get pissed at telecom that they can't alway take their phone number with them? Is telecom being unreasonable here?
Do NZ post offer to redirect you mail for extended periods of time (without charge)?
Both good points. We must remember that the clients do not own the IP addresses. The network providers just allow them to use them. In the same way that I don't own my domain name. Just try to strong-arm DOMAINZ using the argument ``I paid for the domain name so it's mine''. I have tried this and failed (some of you may remember).. =)
How about we just agree to ask clients with NZGATE number to renumber on moves (we have a form/statement we all agree to give them), but eliminate any requirement to renumber)?
Yeah - see my point above about only renumbering when you request more IP addresses. Dean --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog