Re: Fw: [nznog] Rescue from alligators in the swamp
In message
Currently I can get a domain for less than $US 20 per year and that will get injected in the "DNS routing table" of every provider in the world. I fail to see why a block of IP addresses should cost more.
(a) scarcity: the number of possible IP addresses (4 billion) is rather less than the number of possible domain names (37 ** 63 per name segment) (b) impact on other people's systems: a DNS delegation just sits quitely on a couple of DNS servers in a corner, minding its own business, until someone happens to ask about it; a prefix advertised into the global routing table ends up occupying space in every router in the world with a "full table" and being shuttled around between them fairly often. More DNS delegations means bigger hardware at Verisign (or whoever); more prefixes (eventually) means bigger hardware for all routers that make up the Internet. 2 ** 24 (all possible /24s advertised) is a big number, even at only 64 bytes per routing entry (2 ** 30 bytes of memory). (c) volume: a block of IP addresses consists of multiple addresses; at the US$1250/year mark, that's over 1000 usable addresses. If you were to get 1000 $20 domain names, it'd cost more than US$1250/year :-) (d) scale: the many millions of .com domain names pay for the registry; the few thousand APNIC members need to pay for APNIC to run With all that said, I do sympathise with those with smaller-than-/22 requirements for whom portability and/or the ability to multihome would be useful. And if there's some appropriate way that smaller applications can be fitted within APNIC's requirements it'd be worth considering. However my recollection of what the University of Waikato was doing was that it was largely making allocations along the lines of the proposed "national internet registry" -- at least from the point of view of those receiving the allocations -- and 10 years later, it didn't turn out quite as smoothly as one might have hoped. So if it is done some thought will need to be given as to how one will ensure the "portable" assignments will remain "portable" for an extended period of time. Ewen
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Ewen McNeill wrote:
(a) scarcity: the number of possible IP addresses (4 billion) is rather less than the number of possible domain names (37 ** 63 per name segment)
I'd hope that instead of using an economic disincentive to stop people from using up large amounts of IP space, the system of having to justify your IP usage would be sufficient. As has been pointed out by others, there are number of organisations sitting on significant IP address blocks.
(b) impact on other people's systems: a DNS delegation just sits quitely on a couple of DNS servers in a corner, minding its own business, until someone happens to ask about it; a prefix advertised into the global routing table ends up occupying space in every router in the world with a "full table" and being shuttled around between them fairly often.
But with none of this money that is paid to APNIC being shared amongst all of the router owners, I don't really see this as a viable argument.
(c) volume: a block of IP addresses consists of multiple addresses; at the US$1250/year mark, that's over 1000 usable addresses. If you were to get 1000 $20 domain names, it'd cost more than US$1250/year :-)
But since an IP address isn't an individually advertisable/usable entity, and only a block of IPs is, wouldn't it be better to compare a block of IP addresses with a domain name? --David
On 28 Nov 2004, at 19:18, David Robb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Ewen McNeill wrote:
(a) scarcity: the number of possible IP addresses (4 billion) is rather less than the number of possible domain names (37 ** 63 per name segment)
I'd hope that instead of using an economic disincentive to stop people from using up large amounts of IP space, the system of having to justify your IP usage would be sufficient.
I think that's naive: telling lies is cheap, and when you encourage people to tell lies by removing the economic disincentive to apply, the cost of telling what's a lie and what isn't goes up. APNIC isn't operated on a for-profit basis, as far as I know. They have costs, which means they need an income from somewhere. The fees are determined by the policy, which the members set. So there's an argument to say that APNIC members are paying exactly what they want to pay.
As has been pointed out by others, there are number of organisations sitting on significant IP address blocks.
When you figure out the mechanism to change the terms under which resources were allocated long before APNIC ever existed, you should let them know. Be sure to remember that the mechanism probably needs to work in every legal jurisdiction on the planet.
(b) impact on other people's systems: a DNS delegation just sits quitely on a couple of DNS servers in a corner, minding its own business, until someone happens to ask about it; a prefix advertised into the global routing table ends up occupying space in every router in the world with a "full table" and being shuttled around between them fairly often.
But with none of this money that is paid to APNIC being shared amongst all of the router owners, I don't really see this as a viable argument.
I don't understand the preoccupation with money; the fees that APNIC receive are used to pay their operating expenses. APNIC have a duty to act responsibly. An assignment policy which caused massive increase in state bloat in the DFZ would not be responsible -- and furthermore, would probably result in widespread filtering of the prefixes assigned on that basis, rendering the addresses useless anyway.
(c) volume: a block of IP addresses consists of multiple addresses; at the US$1250/year mark, that's over 1000 usable addresses. If you were to get 1000 $20 domain names, it'd cost more than US$1250/year :-)
But since an IP address isn't an individually advertisable/usable entity, and only a block of IPs is, wouldn't it be better to compare a block of IP addresses with a domain name?
There is nothing to stop anybody advertising a single IP address to anybody. The problem is getting people to listen. Joe
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
When you figure out the mechanism to change the terms under which resources were allocated long before APNIC ever existed, you should let them know. Be sure to remember that the mechanism probably needs to work in every legal jurisdiction on the planet.
Isn't that exactly what's happening here though? IP ranges that were allocated before APNIC existed are potentially[1] having their terms changed. [1] I say potentially because there seems to be a lot of confusion about what's actually changing - some whois records for privacy reasons, "ownership" of IP ranges, or what.
I don't understand the preoccupation with money; the fees that APNIC receive are used to pay their operating expenses.
My point was in reply to Ewan who brought up the impact of route advertisments as a cost for those who operate and maintain routers.
APNIC have a duty to act responsibly. An assignment policy which caused massive increase in state bloat in the DFZ would not be responsible -- and furthermore, would probably result in widespread filtering of the prefixes assigned on that basis, rendering the addresses useless anyway.
I'm not sure anyone (I'm not anyway) is advocating a change in APNIC policy to start handing out /29s to anyone who wants them. The issue at hand seems to be the handling of swamp space and how to bring it into line with current policy. Might I therefore make a suggestion (which I'll also be making directly to APNIC) that the administration of the swamp space be done in a "don't let it get any worse" sort of method. ie. - Anyone who's got some of that space gets to keep it for as long as they're using it (or until policy is later changed to force them off it onto IPv6) - Transfer/delegation of this space is disallowed, except to transfer space back to APNIC as part of PI space allocation. No massive increase in state bloat occurs.
and only a block of IPs is, wouldn't it be better to compare a block of IP addresses with a domain name?
There is nothing to stop anybody advertising a single IP address to anybody. The problem is getting people to listen.
One /32 advert takes up as many router resources as a /19 advert. This point was in regards to resource utilisation and comparitive costs of domain names vs IP blocks/advertisments. --David
On 28 Nov 2004, at 20:19, David Robb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
When you figure out the mechanism to change the terms under which resources were allocated long before APNIC ever existed, you should let them know. Be sure to remember that the mechanism probably needs to work in every legal jurisdiction on the planet.
Isn't that exactly what's happening here though? IP ranges that were allocated before APNIC existed are potentially[1] having their terms changed.
I'm not sure exactly what's happening with the NZGATE assignments. It seems possible that nothing new is happening at all, and what people are upset about is fallout from the recently-implemented privacy policy.
[1] I say potentially because there seems to be a lot of confusion about what's actually changing - some whois records for privacy reasons, "ownership" of IP ranges, or what.
Yeah.
I'm not sure anyone (I'm not anyway) is advocating a change in APNIC policy to start handing out /29s to anyone who wants them. The issue at hand seems to be the handling of swamp space and how to bring it into line with current policy.
I don't think that's the issue; if anything, the issue is whether the space in question is really swamp, allocated provider-independent, or whether it was assigned as provider-aggregatable by an entity which was later acquired by Telecom. Everything that I have heard and seen tells me that it's swamp. If you took the perspective that they are all Telecom NZ assignments, however, then it's easy to see how they could be pulled back from non-Telecom customers without any suggestion of retroactive policy application.
Might I therefore make a suggestion (which I'll also be making directly to APNIC) that the administration of the swamp space be done in a "don't let it get any worse" sort of method.
More than likely the best place to make your suggestion is to the policy sig through the mailing list. That's a very good place to get policy clarified, and to propose policy changes if you think they are necessary. APNIC doesn't set policy itself; the members do. Joe
participants (3)
-
David Robb -
Ewen McNeill -
Joe Abley