meeting as technical people
Hello NZNOG, I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question. Robert Hunt Plain Communications (still using 202.36.174.0 for all our most important servers and still expecting those numbers to be portable if we change NSP) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 01:05:08PM +1300, Robert Hunt wrote:
I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question.
*sigh* I so didn't want this discussion to turn out like this. Too many chefs in the kitchen Dean (currently in the bay area, with a bucket full of jetlag) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton Ph: +61-3-9656-7000 Regional Technical Specialist Asia-Pacific Fx: +61-3-9656-7003 Ascend Communications, Inc Mb: +61-419-117-321 Lvl 38, ANZ Tower, 55 Collins St Melbourne,Australia mailto:deanp(a)ascend.com.au -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert, On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 01:05:08PM +1300, Robert Hunt wrote:
I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question.
The fact of the matter is that the network has changed in the last five
years, growing beyond almost anybody's expectations. Along with this
increase in size has, by necessity, come changes in operational practice --
if they had not, the internet would have run out of addresses a long
time ago.
We cannot expect the argument that "we used to do it yesterday, therefore
we claim our right to do it tomorrow" to somehow insulate New Zealand
networks from the changes sweeping across the global network.
Having said all that, the aggregation and address famine issues are not
so critical at this precise instant that we all need to renumber straight
away. This is a good thing, because (as you mention) there are other issues
to consider, including those of operational cost and commercial reality.
I think that what we are all looking for is an agreed policy which will
take into account the operational and commercial issues, but will also
ensure that the aggregation/numbering situation doesn't get any worse. If
we are lucky, we might even find a policy we can all agree on which will
make things better.
Suppose an end-user decided to change ISPs, and was told by his old ISP
that he had to renumber. He might take issue with that, and decide that
his original service contract was sufficiently vague that he might stand
a chance of keeping his addresses if he went to court. A court might very
well decide that under NZ law, he has every right to keep his IP addresses.
Then we have a technical, operational and _global_ issue being decided
by a New Zealand court. This is worth avoiding at all costs.
Regards,
Joe
--
Joe Abley
Robert Hunt wrote:
Hello NZNOG,
I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question.
Robert Hunt Plain Communications (still using 202.36.174.0 for all our most important servers and still expecting those numbers to be portable if we change NSP)
Robert, The key to the utility of address space isn't purely a matter of ownership/proprietary claim. You make a claim to 'own' 202.36.174.0 and you expect it to be portable if you change service provider. If we get to the point on the core of the Internet where major providers insist on carrying routes with no more than /18 or /19 prefixes (and some such as Sprint have raised the prospect) then you may 'own' this address space but it will not be usable. I'd suggest that unless we can come up with a technical solution which is workable then we have no prospect of persuading the 'decision makers' whoever they may be of anything. My experience tells me that given that very people understand how most of this works that if a number of experienced technical people agree on a strategy their organisations will get in behind that. Without that we wouldn't have an Internet and I still think it's the way to move this forward. I hope you can attend the meeting. andy -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (4)
-
Andy Linton -
Dean Pemberton -
Joe Abley -
Robert Hunt