On Wed, 28 May 2003 09:29:59 -0700 "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Michaelson wrote:
> > ...
> > > What is special about a number allocated by
> > the "blessed
> > > agency" in the case we're discussing?
> >
> > Strong admission checks into routing are going to make Joe's
> > numbers less useful.
>
> Admission checks by which authority? Remember we are talking about
> prefixes which are defined to not exist in the global public routing
> system. That makes them completely useful between private routing peers,
> until there is a duplication.
No, we're talking about a complete system. The strong admission checks are on
the other side, in the global routing cloud, excluding these things. The win for
the private routing cloud is a much lower chance of address collision for
arbitrary non-global connectivity, which for the large corporate sector getting
into trade federations outside of the Internet (banks, manufacturing) would seem
to me to be worth trying to achieve.
>
> > Rhetorical questions aside, minor flaws
> > don't stop people using systems which are 'modelled' as being
> > perfect. Whats special is that the agency is seen to operate
> > in a public policy/governance space, to not do what Joe does.
>
> The IETF does not have a good track record in the policy space. The
> numerical registry space is better, but not perfect (how many port
> numbers were assigned after the fact???). I believe the root of kre's
> concern is that we don't approach the governance space with the
> appropriate attitude. We need to admit up front that numbers will never
> be absolutely unique, and that some people will want to make up their
> own for completely random reasons. All we can do is define a single
> rooted registry with a to-be-defined conflict resolution process, and a
> space for those who want to do their own thing. We must not define the
> business aspects of the registry.
I can live with that. I think thats a good position to take on this.
Remind me: why isn't this done outside of routing space via flag-bits or
something like multicast ttl scope? I would have thought that was always going
to be faster to process in router/switch/host firmware or close-to-port logic.
If the localization of the address has to be a property of the address, but all
addresses are otherwise flat in routing ACLs then I really don't see what the
advantage is in explicitly adding non-rooted allocation processes.
But I can see why people want the claimed uniqueness to be qualified.
As to 'business aspects' I think thats outside IETF, but some bodies *do* want
to define that. I think preserving the routing cloud as a commons demands it.
cheers
-George
>
> Tony
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
George Michaelson | APNIC
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490 | Australia
Fax: +61 7 3367 0482 | http://www.apnic.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
