Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
Hi.
Just because network addresses could be considered portable a few years ago doesn't make it so forever - the network is changing, and best current practices change with it.
True, but if you look at best current practice, that does not including route filtering more strictly than the minimum allocation size (i believe it was tried and rejected :-), and it does not involve restrictions on portability. It's easy to argue that within the NZGATE addresses the minimum allocation size is /24. There is also a very serious danger with trying to force this non-portability aspect. It reeks of commercial and not technical motives. It looks like a way to lock up customers by making it difficult to change providers. And without a serious technical reason (like if we don't do it, no one will be able to use the Internet), it is. If i didn't know Joe better, i would have suspected this was part of the reasoning. Nevertheless, one has to look as well as be very clean on any proposal in this area -- looking or behaving like a cartel will cause serious problems. I believe we can accomplish the basic goals with different rules, rules that are fair, fit existing practices, and have little potential commercial motive. How about we use: You can't move unless the entire block allocated by Waikato was allocated to you (or else you renumber). This allows ISPs to move about freely as suggested, some companies will also be able to move, but not those who obtained their IP addresses from an ISP. This will help prevent much further fragmentation, will help prevent overlapping advertisements, and helps clarify "ownership". It would seem prudent for us to at least look at the current allocations and estimate the amount of address space assigned to ISPs and to end users. I suspect there is only a small percentage of end user blocks. And if this is the case there would be very little practical difference between this and the draft's rules. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:29:25AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
I believe we can accomplish the basic goals with different rules, rules that are fair, fit existing practices, and have little potential commercial motive. How about we use:
You can't move unless the entire block allocated by Waikato was allocated to you (or else you renumber).
Thats too harsh... if someone is allocated (say) /22 by their provider (out of their providers allocated space) and wants to move to another provider, they should be allowed to renumber over a reasonable period of time (leaving both parties to defined what reasonable is, I would suggest no more than 6 months and no less than one month). This would only apply to networks larger than /24 of course. -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:29:25AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
There is also a very serious danger with trying to force this non-portability aspect. It reeks of commercial and not technical motives. It looks like a way to lock up customers by making it difficult to change providers. And without a serious technical reason (like if we don't do it, no one will be able to use the Internet), it is. If i didn't know Joe better, i would have suspected this was part of the reasoning. Nevertheless, one has to look as well as be very clean on any proposal in this area -- looking or behaving like a cartel will cause serious problems.
Thanks for the vote of confidence (I think ;) There are both technical and commercial reasons for wanting to tie the issue down, and I mentioned both in the "issues" section in my original message.
I believe we can accomplish the basic goals with different rules, rules that are fair, fit existing practices, and have little potential commercial motive. How about we use:
You can't move unless the entire block allocated by Waikato was allocated to you (or else you renumber).
This allows ISPs to move about freely as suggested, some companies will also be able to move, but not those who obtained their IP addresses from an ISP. This will help prevent much further fragmentation, will help prevent overlapping advertisements, and helps clarify "ownership".
We will need APNIC buy-in, and I agree with Chris that a migration period can be helpful, as long as it is enforced (i.e. enforcable).
It would seem prudent for us to at least look at the current allocations and estimate the amount of address space assigned to ISPs and to end users. I suspect there is only a small percentage of end user blocks. And if this is the case there would be very little practical difference between this and the draft's rules.
It would be _very_ helpful to start to document the allocations that are
currently in use from each ISP, so we can determine the real size of the
problem.
Here are a list of networks within the NZGATE blocks currently routed
by CLEAR (as at today):
202.27.100.0/22
202.27.103.0/24
202.27.115.0/24
202.27.120.0/22
202.27.120.0/24
202.27.81.0/24
202.36.170.0/24
202.36.202.0/24
202.36.227.0/24
202.36.91.0/24
202.37.176.0/23
202.37.188.0/22
202.37.188.0/24
202.37.189.0/24
202.37.190.0/24
202.37.191.0/24
202.37.218.0/23
202.37.218.0/24
202.37.219.0/24
202.49.0.0/21
202.49.16.0/20
202.49.178.0/24
202.49.187.0/24
202.49.224.0/22
202.49.33.0/24
202.49.36.0/24
202.49.46.0/24
202.49.47.0/24
202.49.48.0/24
202.49.63.0/24
202.49.86.0/24
202.50.112.0/24
202.50.117.0/24
202.50.177.0/24
202.50.188.0/22
These are _all_ customer networks as far as we are concerned, since we don't
use any NZGATE addressing for our infrastructure.
How about anybody else?
Joe
--
Joe Abley
Here are a list of networks within the NZGATE blocks currently routed by CLEAR (as at today):
[deletia] These are _all_ customer networks as far as we are concerned, since we don't use any NZGATE addressing for our infrastructure.
How about anybody else?
National Library is using the following NZGATE blocks. They have 2 other non NZGATE /24's as well. I'll include them at the bottom incase anyone is interested. I think the they were allocated directly to Natlib in the old days. 202.49.39.0/24 202.36.64.0/22 202.49.190.0/24 192.122.171.0/24 * 202.12.91.0/24 * ProActive Internetworking is using 202.50.109.0/24 Dean -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, AUS mailto:dpemberton(a)ascend.com.au ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:29:25AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
There is also a very serious danger with trying to force this non-portability aspect. It reeks of commercial and not technical motives. It looks like a way to lock up customers by making it difficult to change providers. And without a serious technical reason (like if we don't do it, no one will be able to use the Internet), it is. If i didn't know Joe better, i would have suspected this was part of the reasoning. Nevertheless, one has to look as well as be very clean on any proposal in this area -- looking or behaving like a cartel will cause serious problems.
Thanks for the vote of confidence (I think ;)
There are both technical and commercial reasons for wanting to tie the issue down, and I mentioned both in the "issues" section in my original message.
I believe we can accomplish the basic goals with different rules, rules that are fair, fit existing practices, and have little potential commercial motive. How about we use:
You can't move unless the entire block allocated by Waikato was allocated to you (or else you renumber).
This allows ISPs to move about freely as suggested, some companies will also be able to move, but not those who obtained their IP addresses from an ISP. This will help prevent much further fragmentation, will help prevent overlapping advertisements, and helps clarify "ownership".
We will need APNIC buy-in, and I agree with Chris that a migration period can be helpful, as long as it is enforced (i.e. enforcable).
I agree on a migration period as well but I think 6 months is much too long. Consider the scenario where several /22 networks change to use another provider over the 6 month period. This could result in large amounts of space being unavailable. I doubt whether APNIC would be well disposed to issue more space in this case. I'd suggest that a maximum period of two months would be a better time scale. I also believe that the 'receiving' ISP needs to make it clear to their new customer that this time scale must be adhered to. Presumably we can all agree that once we get people working from provider based blocks then the playing field is level and that renumbering is no longer such a barrier to migration. Customers need to understand that one of the costs involved in moving will be renumbering. I've currently got these networks: 203.97.128.0/17 202.37.0.0/20 202.27.40.0/21 202.49.208.0/21 202.27.64.0/22 202.27.92.0/22 202.27.104.0/22 202.36.164.0/22 202.36.192.0/22 202.37.60.0/22 202.49.72.0/22 202.27.70.0/23 202.27.78.0/23 202.27.82.0/23 202.36.32.0/23 202.36.44.0/23 202.36.162.0/23 202.36.244.0/23 202.37.32.0/23 202.37.56.0/23 202.37.72.0/23 202.27.34.0/24 202.27.68.0/24 202.27.88.0/24 202.27.100.0/24 202.27.128.0/24 202.36.29.0/24 202.36.34.0/24 202.36.46.0/24 202.36.60.0/24 202.36.70.0/24 202.36.72.0/24 202.36.76.0/24 202.36.80.0/24 202.36.114.0/24 202.36.137.0/24 202.36.141.0/24 202.36.154.0/24 202.36.157.0/24 202.36.171.0/24 202.36.173.0/24 202.36.196.0/24 202.36.198.0/24 202.36.224.0/24 202.36.229.0/24 202.36.235.0/24 202.36.239.0/24 202.36.240.0/24 202.36.251.0/24 202.36.252.0/24 202.37.23.0/24 202.37.27.0/24 202.37.52.0/24 202.37.54.0/24 202.37.78.0/24 202.37.85.0/24 202.37.112.0/24 202.37.114.0/24 202.37.166.0/24 202.37.173.0/24 202.37.235.0/24 202.49.50.0/24 202.49.84.0/24 202.49.86.0/24 202.49.140.0/24 202.49.193.0/24 202.49.194.0/24 202.49.197.0/24 202.49.206.0/24 202.50.102.0/24 202.50.137.0/24 202.50.139.0/24 202.50.164.0/24 202.50.252.0/24 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 01:54:20AM +0000, Andy Linton wrote:
I agree on a migration period as well but I think 6 months is much too long.
Arguably, 6 months is too long when we are talking about requires a customer of one provider to renumber when moving to another, 3 months seems more appropriate here.
Consider the scenario where several /22 networks change to use another provider over the 6 month period. This could result in large amounts of space being unavailable. I doubt whether APNIC would be well disposed to issue more space in this case.
Perhaps... but the scenario I suggested, which I might add, APNIC probably won't take seriously, is that ALL of NZ renumbers. This is a fairly large task that will require much planning, and in this case, I think a 6 month transition period is reasonable.
I'd suggest that a maximum period of two months would be a better time scale.
For moving a customer, yes (although I think 3 is better), for moving all of NZ - no. Does anyone see any reason for all of NZ to renumber? I like the idea, mainly because NZ address space is a mess, and it would be a good time to clean it up, before it grows much more... beyond the point where its feasible. -Chris --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
Does anyone see any reason for all of NZ to renumber? I like the idea, mainly because NZ address space is a mess, and it would be a good time to clean it up, before it grows much more... beyond the point where its feasible.
Who do you propose will pay the end users for the pain and real costs involved? The ISPs have the easy part of this renumbering. I don't see people renumbering because it's the right thing to do. They'll do it because they have to e.g. when they move ISP. -- 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
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 02:26:52AM +0000, Andy Linton wrote:
Who do you propose will pay the end users for the pain and real costs involved? The ISPs have the easy part of this renumbering. I don't see people renumbering because it's the right thing to do. They'll do it because they have to e.g. when they move ISP.
If, for whatever reason, it was decided a clean up of NZ address space was required, and everyone is given new numbers and a date by which they need to renumber by - then provided the time frame is reasonable, I don't see a problem, provided everyone does their own small part. The biggest renumbering headache I've seen is usually because of M$ crap, because you have to go through the painful process of click, point, click, type, point, type, point, type, etc. to change a single address - and if the box has 500 or so, ouch. Having all of NZ renumber is drastic (to say the least) and I don't seriously expect APNIC or indeed many other people will entertain this idea, but it still should be possible for people to attempt to aggregate their networks more efficiently. People know where the are small /24 holes in the address space, and they could make efforts to reclaim this space - which I think is only reasonable. However, that said, I'm sure many people when asked to do this will say, 'go away' - these a MY numbers or something similar. Renumbering isn't trivial - but it not rocket science either... -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 03:14:56PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
I'd suggest that a maximum period of two months would be a better time scale.
For moving a customer, yes (although I think 3 is better), for moving all of NZ - no.
By "all of NZ" you presumably mean "everybody numbered out of the NZGATE blocks".
Does anyone see any reason for all of NZ to renumber? I like the idea, mainly because NZ address space is a mess, and it would be a good time to clean it up, before it grows much more... beyond the point where its feasible.
I don't think this is feasible.
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.
Any proposed action which requires large providers to substantially renumber
their entire networks is inequitable, and will never be agreed across the
board. Without wide agreement, any proposed strategy is next to worthless.
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.
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.
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.
It would be in ISP A's interests to make the network transition public, so
that there are witnesses :)
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.
Joe
--
Joe Abley
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
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
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
It would be useful to know what size blocks the major US backbone providers see as viable entries. Currently they will accept a /24 but I've seen numbers like /18 or /19 bandied around in the past as the size of blocks that will be routable on the backbone for the forseeable future. (I recall Sprint for example saying that they would support blocks of this size.) If that's the case then I see no reason to renumber blocks of those sizes - the registered holder should instead be changed. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (5)
-
Andy Linton -
Chris Wedgwood -
craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz -
Dean Pemberton -
Joe Abley