On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 03:30:08PM +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
By "all of NZ" you presumably mean "everybody numbered out of the NZGATE blocks".
No - I mean, the unlikely theoretical situation where APNIC say, "the allocations are a mess, here are some new numbers, everyone must renumber within 200 days or we'll be around with a blowtorch and pliers" or something. I mentioned it in passing, I didn't mean for it to be taken too seriously.
One of the main objectives I was trying to achieve with my draft was to avoid placing onerous requirements on any particular network operator and, in fact, any particular end-user, but at the same time provide a mechanism which _over_time_ would naturally cause things to become tidier rather than more messy.
Oh, I quite agree, hence my suggestion that people should first try to aggregate their networks better, reclaiming smaller networks firsts having those people move onto address space within their current provider allocation.
A transition period of 3 months for an end-user to renumber their network (assuming the subnet used by the customer has a sufficiently narrow mask) is a perfectly good objective, but we need to make sure that there are mechanisms available for the operator of the wider supernet to track and enforce the return of the holes after those three months.
Perhaps something like this then: /24+ - non transferable, renumbering required for provider transition /22+ - renumbering required withing 1 month /19+ - renumbering required within three months, unless by prior arrangement with all parties else - renumbering required within no more than 6 months and no less than 3 months, unless by prior arrangement with all parties
This might sound like I'm advocating some kind of central clearing house for addresses within NZ which would impartially manage these transitions. I'm not -- I think the idea of a centralised point of management (in this application) is inherently bad and dangerous; it could be argued that we have already followed (or been led down) this road with DOMAINZ.
It's already centrally managed as far as allocations go - APNIC. Apart from the fact they are total nazi bastards, I don't think its been all that bad. Central management of existing networks, and future transitions isn't a good idea, but it would be a nice idea for someone to write up a code of practise and try to get everyone to agree to that. Who should write such a thing - logically, someone who has already done something similar, even if its only a draft.... It's probably also worth mentioning, some people are using non APNIC allocated address space here - what's the generally consensus on doing this?
Something as simple as "when customer X moves between ISP A and ISP B, and needs to take her networks with her for up to three months, this fact will be publicised in a public forum by ISP A and B". A suitable public forum in this instance might be NZNOG.
Maybe we should look at getting, nznog.org.nz or something similar, and publishing these details on a more formal basis. I'm sure someone here can provide web and domain hosting (my preference is ClearNet here, because that way Joe can do all the grunt work, but, if need be, I'm happy to provide any or all of the above myself).
It would be in ISP A's interests to make the network transition public, so that there are witnesses :)
Perhaps, all network transitions should be publicised everywhere. Marketroids won't like it, because it lets the opositions know whats going on, but in reality, it doesn't tell you anything you can't oobtain elsewhere.
It could be argued that there are commercial implications in announcing customer movement like this, but the information is there, public, waiting to be read in the routing tables anyway, so it's hardly sensitive.
Yes, this is what I am eluding too - but if a network moves, even a simple traceroute will tell you what is going on... -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog