On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 09:30:23AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
Craig, all of the recent (post 1996) RFCs and
IETF drafts that I have seen
make it clear that address portability is inconsistent with having a
routable Internet. The regional registries all have policies to
reduce route table fragmentation by migrating organisations to provider
I'm suggesting we attempt to address historical address portability
where it was rightfully assumed and that we do not attempt to force
One of the core drivers of my draft was that no network operator (end-user
or otherwise) would be obliged to renumber during the normal course of their
business activities. Migration would be thrown into the exercise when the
network operator next needed to obtain additional address space, or moved
Just because network addresses could be considered portable a few years ago
doesn't make it so forever - the network is changing, and best current
practices change with it.
Also clarification of the "ownership" of the
addresses would seem to be in order as there seems to be some dispute
and confusion there.
That is the main driver for the draft.
If subnets delegated from NZGATE blocks are considered portable, then there
is no "operational ownership" of the NZGATE supernets worth arguing about --
in this model, the delegated subnets "belong" to the network using them.
However, this doesn't scale, and hence the "ownership" rests with the
In the case where the provider no longer exists, confusion reigns :)
For NZGATE addresses, i do not believe this is
In addition to my general moaning, the draft specifically penalises
many older ISPs (by making the addresses of their servers non-portable)
does not address multi-homed use, and does not provide exceptions where
portability is reasonable.
This is true.
However, these problems are not unique to NZ - they are problems that affect
the network as a whole. Provider-based addressing _is_ inconvenient. However,
as you mentioned, the move towards provider-based addressing and CIDR
aggregation has prolonged the life of the current IPv4 numbered network
How about policies based more roughly around these
Those who obtained addresses directly from Waikato with the
legitimate understanding they were portable should be treated
as portable (/23 or shorter automatically qualifies).
If you can justify a 19-bit (or shorter) prefix block, you can get one direct
from APNIC... Perhaps we can circumvent the inconvenience of renumbering for
the older ISPs by having APNIC endorse /19s already operated by these ISPs
as delegated directly to them?
Addresses obtained from an ISP are not
portable and should not
be advertised by another ISP (except by agreement).
No provider is allowed to advertise supernets that overlap
another providers advertisements (except by agreement).
These two makes lots of sense. I think it is important to take a united front
on these issues and make them widely known amongst users, forever dispersing
the idea of portable address space for small networks.
Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008
Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads: