On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 21:30 +0100, JP Velders wrote:
[ ... ]
I think the risk of ISPs handing out /64s is very small. Actually I expect
most of the consumer ISPs (and they are the ones with the large number
of customers) to hand out /128s.
Uhm, one of my private (as in I'm the
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:41:37AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
Uhh, I'd say there are a thousand or two such ISPs in the world.
That's not insignificant. It isn't useful to be stingy when
allocating prefixes to ISPs which _might_ end up needing more than a
/32 for their customer /48
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:06:59 -0500
From: Nils Ketelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
[ ... ]
I think the risk of ISPs handing out /64s is very small. Actually I expect
most of the consumer ISPs (and they are the ones with the large number
of customers
[snip a bunch of stuff where we finally appear to basically agree or at
least
understand each other]
Actually, that fragmentation was primarily the result of being
insufficiently stingy early on.
There are many kinds of fragmentation. When you only get (e.g.,) a v4
/24 for a start, and when you
It's not as we are carving out v4 /8's (1/256 of space) for early
adopters. Or even /16's. More like the equivalent space of a host
address. That's hardly too much. In fact, it's way too little for
those ISPs which have home customers like DSL, and it's going to be a a
pain because they either
--On onsdag 24 november 2004 11.40 -0800 Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The current problem is that the RIR membership has self-selected to a
state where they set policies that ensure the end customer has no
alternative except to be locked into their provider's address space.
Do note
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
The current problem is that the RIR membership has self-selected to a
state where they set policies that ensure the end customer has no
alternative except to be locked into their provider's address space.
Do note that, IIRC,
In a message written on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:40:50AM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
The current problem is that the RIR membership has self-selected to a state
where they set policies that ensure the end customer has no alternative
except to be locked into their provider's address space. Everyone
I don't think this statement is true on its face. Regardless, if
it is true the end users have no one to blame but themselves.
Agreed... Although I think ARIN could do better outreach to the broader
community. I think there are perceptions out there that differ from
reality,
and, blaming people
In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:09:08AM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
I will point out, however, that if the boundary moves to /24, there's not
much difference between the allocation policy of the past that created the
swamp and current allocation policy. I'm not saying I think
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
#1 Set aside a block for local use a-la RFC1918. This set aside
should make no recommendations about how the space is subdivided
for used for these local purposes.
FWIW, site-locals were dropped (among others) due to concerns about
sufficient
--On Monday, November 29, 2004 21:35 +0200 Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
# 1 Set aside a block for local use a-la RFC1918. This set aside
should make no recommendations about how the space is subdivided
for used for these local purposes.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
# 1 Set aside a block for local use a-la RFC1918. This set aside
should make no recommendations about how the space is subdivided
for used for these local purposes.
FWIW, site-locals were dropped (among others)
The problem with this scheme is that it's only aggregatable if there's
some POP that lots of carriers connect to in the proper geographic
areas. What is the carriers' incentive to show up -- peer? -- at such
points, rather than following today's practices?
Leaving aside the specifics of
Believe me, this will occur. It will probably
start with Well, we've got this connection to you and this connection
to
ISP B, and, you guys peer, so, can you pass our ULA prefixes along to
each
other?
Talk to the other ISP, work out pricing, and sell an IP over IP
solution,
MPLS
On 25-nov-04, at 13:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with this scheme is that it's only aggregatable if there's
some POP that lots of carriers connect to in the proper geographic
areas. What is the carriers' incentive to show up -- peer? -- at such
points, rather than following today's
--On 25 November 2004 13:16 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In today's network, is there anyone left who uses 1500 byte
MTUs in their core?
I expect there are quite a few networks who will give you workable
end-to-end MTU's 1500 bytes, either because of the above or because of
peering links.
Given
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 02:05:25PM +, Alex Bligh wrote:
Given how pMTUd works, this speculation should be relatively easy to test
(take end point on 1500 byte MTU, run traceroute with appropriate MTU to
various points and see where fragmentation required comes back). Of course
I'd have
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:09:02 EST, Daniel Senie said:
Seems to me we wrote a document some years ago about how to address this.
If the upstream ISP isn't willing to filter at their edges, then write
contract language that the client is required to filter such traffic in
THEIR border routers.
At 04:46 PM 11/25/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:09:02 EST, Daniel Senie said:
Seems to me we wrote a document some years ago about how to address this.
If the upstream ISP isn't willing to filter at their edges, then write
contract language that the client is required to
IANAL, but, I'm suspecting that the restraint of trade specter would be
raised by the router vendors if you start incorporating demands that
they not implement features their customers (these same tier 1s) would
be asking for. Of course, the IETF doesn't have any real power to
prevent router
We may not. However, without ULA, I question whether people will bother
adopting IPv6 at all. If that's what the community desires, then so be
it. However, I expect market forces will drive the requirement for ULA.
If it's missing, I expect a repeat of another happening with IPv4, that
being
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against
the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the
thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Hain writes:
My to-do list for the next couple of weeks has an item to ask for a BoF at
the next IETF on an interim moderately aggregatible PI approach. I cc'd the
Internet ADs since this is as good a time as any to start the process. I
have a proposal on the
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:40 -0800 Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against
the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against
the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the
thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
...
The problem with this scheme is that it's only aggregatable if there's
some POP that lots of carriers connect to in the proper geographic
areas. What is the carriers' incentive to show up -- peer? -- at such
points, rather than following today's practices?
It
Owen DeLong wrote:
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:40 -0800 Tony Hain alh-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued
against
the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
practice as a
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:52 -0800 Crist Clark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against
the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally
Well... I'm saying, at least, that I'd rather change the RIR policy and
work
in an open and consistent manner based on input from the operational
community and other stakeholders than have the IETF start setting
allocation
policy for PI space while pretending that isn't what is happening. If
the
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:52:21 PST, Crist Clark said:
Do customers demand that their ISPs route RFC1918 addresses now? (And
that's an honest question. I am not being sarcastic.) Wouldn't the IPv6
No, they just emit the traffic anyhow. Often it travels an amazing distance
before hitting a router
At 07:32 PM 11/24/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:52:21 PST, Crist Clark said:
Do customers demand that their ISPs route RFC1918 addresses now? (And
that's an honest question. I am not being sarcastic.) Wouldn't the IPv6
No, they just emit the traffic anyhow. Often it
At 07:11 PM 11/24/2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status: Good Signature from Invalid Key
*** Alert:Please verify signer's key before trusting signature.
*** Signer: Owen DeLong (General Purpose Personal Key) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(0x0FE2AA3D)
*** Signed:
John Curran wrote:
...
If ARIN's members direct it to provide such a service, and provide
guidance that
the fees should based initial-only and on a cost recovery, I have a lot of
faith that
it would occur...
That does, of course, presume that the operator community actually agrees
with
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against
the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the
thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against
something that
I've actually tried to avoid commenting on this thread, but that's obviously
not going work...
Disclaimer: I am the Chairman of ARIN, but these comments herein are my own
musings on this topic and nothing more.
At 2:26 PM -0600 11/19/04, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The RIRs'
36 matches
Mail list logo
