Hi.
NZGATE/Waikato has a little piece of paper which said they owned these addresses?
I meant that NZGATE addresses (those identified in Joe's document as NZGATE addresses) belong to those to whom they were issued.
Illegal - which law or laws would be in violation here?
There are likely several. It's one of the reasons i earlier suggested a legal opinion would be appropriate. It makes little sense to suggest a policy that would likely be overtuned by the courts. However, there are many forms a policy could take that would make this unnecessary.
Which 'improvements in routing software' are we talking about here?
Most specifically dampening.
but more routes is going to lead to more human errors and more complicated access-lists, etc.
It's already outside human built lists (which are always error prone) in many if not almost all circumstances. We'll see better tools and life will get easier in spite of a growing number of routes and peering relationships.
Was 202/8 initially not divided up into much large chunks (eg. /20)?
No. 202/8 was in use before provider based addressing was introduced. Several (of the earliest) NZ ISPs have /24's in 202/8 direct from APNIC that are outside the NZGATE addresses. APNIC issued /24's all over the asia-pacific region out of 202/8 without country specific aggregation. Only later did they move to provider based addressing within 202/8.
Nobody should be forced to renumber (unless there network is very small, say /28), but there should be mechanisms which encourage this when appropriate.
Anything longer than /24 is not very routable (Sprint for one doesn't accept routes longer than /24), so /24 is the usable limit. I have no problem with a statement saying blocks smaller than /24 are not portable. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 09:34:09PM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
Anything longer than /24 is not very routable (Sprint for one doesn't accept routes longer than /24), so /24 is the usable limit. I have no problem with a statement saying blocks smaller than /24 are not portable.
MCI, Telstra, Teleglobe and Concentric also refuse any advertisements
with a longer prefix than 24.
There is another good reason to avoid >24 portability - DNS.
In-addr.arpa zones for smaller networks are inherently unportable under
the prevalent scheme for finding PTR records, which presupposes delegation
based on octet boundaries.
In other words, it is unreasonable to think that a customer could leave
ISP A for ISP B, taking her addresses with her, and expect ISP A to
maintain PTR records for her hosts with no recompense.
PTR records are worthwhile for a number of reasons, and we do not want
a policy which encourages people not to use them.
I think consensus on the fact that _any_ network prefix longer than 24
bits is not portable should be easy to reach. Anybody disagree with this?
(straw poll :)
Joe
--
Joe Abley
Joe Abley wrote:
I think consensus on the fact that _any_ network prefix longer than 24 bits is not portable should be easy to reach. Anybody disagree with this? (straw poll :)
I agree. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 09:34:09PM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
I meant that NZGATE addresses (those identified in Joe's document as NZGATE addresses) belong to those to whom they were issued.
Belong, much the same way as you own furniture?
There are likely several.
For example?
Most specifically dampening.
I don't think that makes routing faster or easier, it just makes life easier for people when bad things might otherwise happen.
It's already outside human built lists (which are always error prone) in many if not almost all circumstances. We'll see better tools and life will get easier in spite of a growing number of routes and peering relationships.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Humans build `smaller' lists which are aggragated together (via some kind of RA). Building a global list from the RA is automated and tools exists for this, but the more complicated an origanisations routing becomes, the more liekly they will introcude errors into the RA. Some, but not all, of these errors will be detected.
Anything longer than /24 is not very routable (Sprint for one doesn't accept routes longer than /24), so /24 is the usable limit. I have no problem with a statement saying blocks smaller than /24 are not portable.
But you beleive that any /24 route should be considered completely portable in most circumstances? -cw --------- 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 -
Chris Wedgwood -
craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz -
Joe Abley