Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
Hi.
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.
But if they have a /24 they don't have to. What this group is attempting to do is impose costs on the end users only if they try to move ISPs. It's a great way to lock up your clients. There is no technical reason to make users renumber when they move (just as there is no strong reason to make everyone move for the sake of moving). Getting everyone to migrate seems to be a goal, but yet by making users renumber only when they move, you will slow movement and thus migration. Importantly, the current proposal is not workable. The first client whose renumbering exercise is expensive will likely seek an injuction against any provider attempting to enforce these ideas. The balance of convenience would favor the end user and not the provider (who will suffer zero or no loss or convenience as a result of the end user not renumbering). In the case of an ISP, web hosting company, or business which depends on the Internet (and that's a good percentage of them now), not changing providers may not be a viable option. By opening the door with an N month grace period you are only showing everyone that it's technically possible but that you don't want to do it for commercial reasons. Restrictions on portability have never been _introduced_ anywhere else for _historical_ IP addresses. Half the root name servers are running on /24s -- every wonder why that is? I see no real benefit here -- we will still have ISPs moving these addresses around for years to come (the proposal rightly allows for that) -- what reason makes routes for ISPs look any different than routes for end users? How about we just agree to ask clients with NZGATE number to renumber on moves (we have a form/statement we all agree to give them), but eliminate any requirement to renumber)? -Craig --------- 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 04:58:39PM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
But if they have a /24 they don't have to.
If everyone who has been allocated /24 network by their provider moved somewhere else - then the routing tables for NZ would be considerable larger and more difficult to manage.
What this group is attempting to do is impose costs on the end users only if they try to move ISPs.
I suspect that is the last thing that people intend to do, they merely want to allow migration of networks in a reasonable way, without creating considerable administrative overhead because of lots of little routes everywhere.
It's a great way to lock up your clients.
The best way to do this would be to say, "You must renumber immediately, which I don't think anyone here is advocating"
There is no technical reason to make users renumber when they move
Yes there is... keeping routing tables as small as possible make them easier to manage.
Importantly, the current proposal is not workable. The first client whose renumbering exercise is expensive will likely seek an injuction against any provider attempting to enforce these ideas.
Hence `resonable terms', for example, giving someone three months to /renumber a 22 network isn't unacceptable is it? Do people, when they move house, get pissed at telecom that they can't alway take their phone number with them? Is telecom being unreasonable here? Do NZ post offer to redirect you mail for extended periods of time (without charge)?
By opening the door with an N month grace period you are only showing everyone that it's technically possible but that you don't want to do it for commercial reasons.
An N month period allows us to make sure only a small percentage of small networks are in the routing tables...
How about we just agree to ask clients with NZGATE number to renumber on moves (we have a form/statement we all agree to give them), but eliminate any requirement to renumber)?
I don't think anyone can absoultely _require_ anything, but trying to encourage acceptable policies surely isn't a bad thing? -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
But if they have a /24 they don't have to.
If everyone who has been allocated /24 network by their provider moved somewhere else - then the routing tables for NZ would be considerable larger and more difficult to manage.
And they are a huge mess now.
What this group is attempting to do is impose costs on the end users only if they try to move ISPs.
Yeah! We are money hungry b'stards, and while I'm at it, who hasn't paid their `network uptime' protection money. =) What we are trying to do here is acknowledge that the way the NZGATE addresses were issued was, while appropriate at the time, a problem. Now that customers are taking large prefix networks and expecting them to be portable between ISP's we have a problem. Rather than just choose to ignore the problem and hope that `she'll be right', we have choosen to try to do something about it. Hence Joe's proposal.
It's a great way to lock up your clients.
You are totally correct. Another good way would be to make them sign fixed length contracts. There are many good ways to lock clients into ISP's but lets leave them to the marketing droids. This is not what this discussion is about. It is VERY sad that this IP problem has commercial and political implications. If it didn't then it would make the whole situation a lot easier to deal with. As Chris has said, the best way to solve the NZGATE issue is to force everyone to renumber out of provider based IP addresses immediately. This is however not going to please a lot of people, so we are looking at a compromise.
There is no technical reason to make users renumber when they move
Again you are correct. The best situation is to make them renumber now. How about.... ``If you move then you should atleast consider renumbering at the same time'' Pretty washy I know - but just wait. ``If you request any additional IP addresses from an ISP in the future then you must return all of your NZGATE addresses and renumber'' This means that a client can move ISP's as much as they like, so their is no commercial advantage being levered by the ISP's. But should the customer decide that they want to make some network changes (like adding some more networks) then it's about time that they joined the '90's and numbered with provider-based IP's. It would be like me going to APNIC and saying; ``Hi - I have 63 non-contiguous /24's and I'd like one more /24 please'' They would tell me to get knotted. But if I went and said ``Hi - I have 63 non-contiguous /24's that I'd like to return to you. Oh and can I have a /18 please.'' They would say Sure!
Importantly, the current proposal is not workable. The first client whose renumbering exercise is expensive will likely seek an injuction against any provider attempting to enforce these ideas.
Hence `resonable terms', for example, giving someone three months to /renumber a 22 network isn't unacceptable is it?
Do people, when they move house, get pissed at telecom that they can't alway take their phone number with them? Is telecom being unreasonable here?
Do NZ post offer to redirect you mail for extended periods of time (without charge)?
Both good points. We must remember that the clients do not own the IP addresses. The network providers just allow them to use them. In the same way that I don't own my domain name. Just try to strong-arm DOMAINZ using the argument ``I paid for the domain name so it's mine''. I have tried this and failed (some of you may remember).. =)
How about we just agree to ask clients with NZGATE number to renumber on moves (we have a form/statement we all agree to give them), but eliminate any requirement to renumber)?
Yeah - see my point above about only renumbering when you request more IP addresses. Dean --------- 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 05:42:38PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
Do people, when they move house, get pissed at telecom that they can't alway take their phone number with them? Is telecom being unreasonable here?
They will, actually, as long as your new connection is off the same exchange.
Do NZ post offer to redirect you mail for extended periods of time (without charge)?
Yes, actually - even overseas...
Just being awkward :)
--
Joe Abley
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 06:24:06PM +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
They will, actually, as long as your new connection is off the same exchange.
Taking the analogy further, if a client disconnects from ISP A.0 and moves to ISP A.1 (ie. to the same network infrastructure, but some other part of it) then they could keep their numbers. If you know what I mean. I'm not sure the analogy between telephone exchange and network provider is totally appropriate though...
Yes, actually - even overseas...
No they won't - they only do it for 3 months, then they want money for it. Take it from me, I know this - I move house or country about 4 or 5 times a year (although things are starting to stabilize, I've been in NZ for 1 year 1 day! (and moved house 3 times)). -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (4)
-
Chris Wedgwood -
craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz -
Dean Pemberton -
Joe Abley