Terry,
My basic comment is that this is not a bad idea, in fact is good for
the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry. But for the IANA registries for
v4 and v6 even though there is benefit, the matter of modify them is IMHO
complex in nature.
See some other comments in line.
On 23 Aug 2011, at 03:20, Terry Manderson wrote:
> Hi Arturo,
>
>
> On 23/08/11 4:00 AM, "Arturo Servin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Terry
>>
>> Who defines that one of the other is routable or not?
>
> Defines?
>
> It specifies if the prefix is _intended_ to be routable.
>
>>
>> For example, 179/8. It assigned to LACNIC but we cannot claim that the
>> whole /8 is routable. It would depend in the allocations and the
>> organisations
>> that are received them to decide if their assignment is or not routable.
>
> Anything related to 179/8 and the allocations within that are surely the
> business of LACNIC. The only thing this is saying is that space within 179/8
> is intended to be publically routed. Do you disagree with that statement?
No, but then IANA registry only holds /8s and almost all of them are
routable. The ones that are not routable are described in other RFCs (i.e.
1918). So, the information is not there but we already know it.
> Just as 169.254.0.0/16 is intended as Not Routable. Do you disagree with
> that?
No, but you cannot tag this one in IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry.
>
>>
>> For the rest, I have the following comments (Version 0 looked very
>> different to v1 / v2):
>>
>> - I see the importance of the PRI in IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address
>> Registry but
>> - I do not see any technical advantage to include that information in
>> the IPv4 and IPv6 registries (as my comment about 179/8)
>>
>
> I disagree, I see advantage in that it adds a completely unambiguous
> statement of what is routable and what is not. Surely that is helpful for
> those people beating their heads against organisations who are still
> filtering 1/8, 14/8 etc..
There is and advantage, I won't deny it. But I think that it is too
much effort and too little real benefit.
If people continues to filter 1/8 with all the fuss about IPv4, darknet
and so on that we have made, I really doubt that adding a field in IANA
registry is going to change that.
>
>>
>> "The IANA address registries currently do not have a uniform and
>> consistent nomenclature to signal if an allocation is intended to be
>> publicly routed"
>>
>> Because they are mainly /8 (v4) and /12 (v6) assigned to RIRs, there
>> is no need for any signal or it is irrelevant.
>
> I disagree. Signaling the routing intent also provides a perfect reflection
> on what should be seen in RPKI through the manifestation of RPKI objects.
> see draft-ietf-rpki-iana-objects.
Yes, but only for the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry. For
the rest, what is the benefit vs effort to explicitly state that a specific /12
is routable if we already know that?
>
> Surely transparency and simplicity there is a good thing!
>
>>
>>
>> "Work is underway in the IETF to design and document a number of
>> systems or architectures to facilitate the desire to secure the
>> Internet routing system."
>>
>> Yes, RPKI is the place and technology to do this, not PRI IMHO.
>
> I'm not with you on that one. RPKI is just one perceived use of this.
>
>>
>> "Such work will require an explicit statement as to the
>> intended public routability of an allocation."
>>
>> May be (I think it does not), but in any case, the IANA registry is
>> not the place. Also, IANA does not have that information. Neither RIRs.
>
> The IANA certainly should have the ability to say if a prefix allocated or
> assigned was intended for seen in a public routing context. The question of
> it actually being seen is not in this scope.
>
>>
>> "This document directs IANA to extend all the IPv4 and IPv6 address
>> registries to record Public Routing Intent (PRI) as either "Routable"
>> or "Not Routable".
>>
>> IANA does not have the mechanisms to do that.
>
> I don't understand your statement.
> What specifically do you think IANA does not have a mechanism for?
>
> This is a registry - it records the routing intent of a prefix.
> Are you saying that IANA does not have the mechanisms to follow what the
> IETF tells it to do?
Besides /8 (v4) and /12 (v6) and the small pieces of IETF reserved
space IANA does not have explicit data to say that a prefix is routable or not.
Even for the /8s and /12s (and some /23s I think) I am not sure that IANA can
unilaterally tag a resource already assigned to the RIRs, in either case is the
IETF and IAB who should do it and may be grow is not the place.
>
>>
>> Also I think that we are going to waters that we should not go (this
>> is going between the technical and policies fields).
>
> Sorry, you have me confused. What policy field does this enter? Please be
> specific. Because I'm not seeing it.
ASO Global policies. They deal in how assigned space to RIR is managed
in a global scope, they also instructs IANA how to allocate space to them. Why
tagging the allocated space as routed should be out (or in) of global policies?
(rhetorical question)
You are intended to modify space assigned to RIRs (some of them), some
may argue (not me now) that this should be dealt as a global policy coming from
the RIRs. Other may say that is IETF matter in grow, some other IAB. Honestly I
am not sure which one is the rightful owner to decide what to do. But I think
that this could easy turn complex and the benefit is so little that it is not
worth of the discussion.
>
> Cheers
> Terry
Best wishes,
.as
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
