Your views have been noted, and I will personally note them at the meeting. I will undertake to provide a report of the segment proceedings on this back to the mail list, for those who could not attend, as this appears to be a "hot" topic for many of you. Rgds Roger De Salis - CiscoNZ Craig Anderson wrote:
Hi.
I think the first step in this is to get the "ownership" issues aired (I don't think it will be "solved") at the ISOCNZ conference tomorrow; at least then hopefully we'll have some idea of what various positions are. I don't think the ex-NZGate issue can be really proceeded on without that.
Agreed. Since Iprolink will not have a representative attending the ISOCNZ conference. I will state our company's position on ownership:
1) ownership of NZGATE addresses belong to the company to which they were assigned. In the case of ISPs sub-assigning blocks, this may be a contractual matter between the ISP and the client;
2) NZGATE addresses include only those previously noted and within 202/8; and
3) we would view attempts by a group of NZ ISPs to block or otherwise restrict portability of the NZGATE addresses as illegal.
I've already discussed some of the technical issues surrounding this matter, i'll repeat them. Some of this represents our position on technical issues:
1) in 1995 there was very valid concern that because routing table growth was outstriping router CPU and memory growth that is was only a matter of time before major routing problems developed;
2) the introduction of CIDR, minimum allocations sizes (no new assignments longer than /19), and improvements in routing software, have slowed router table memory and CPU requirements to much less than improvements in technology are delivering and can be expected to deliver. In short, the changes have removed any _need_ to introduce further changes and in fact indicate a relaxing of rules is more likely;
3) The only route filtering occurring on the Internet today that affects connectivity (i.e. backbones with no default route) is being done on /8's where the minimum allocation size is /19. With half the root nameservers on /24's, wholesale short prefix filtering will not occur in the short term. Attempts to predict long term policy are not valid.
4) The NZGATE addresses are in a /8 block where the minimum allocation size was /24;
5) With 40,000+ routes, it's hard to make a case that the addition of several hundred routes due to migration is significant (more than several hundred additional routes are unlikely because of aggregation and the likelyhood of distribution tending to favor a few ISPs).
And with regard to policy:
1) Iprolink would support a public statement which encourages migration to new addresses (by explaining the benefits) where it would not tend increase use of address space.
-Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
-- \_ Roger De Salis Cisco Systems NZ Ltd