On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 04:59:01PM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
Agreed. Since Iprolink will not have a representative
the ISOCNZ conference. I will state our company's position on
Speaking only for myself;
1) ownership of NZGATE addresses belong to the company
they were assigned. In the case of ISPs sub-assigning blocks,
this may be a contractual matter between the ISP and the client;
So originally these addresses belonged to NZGATE and were transfered
to the companies with which they now reside?
NZGATE/Waikato has a little peice of paper which said they owned
3) we would view attempts by a group of NZ ISPs to
otherwise restrict portability of the NZGATE addresses as
Illegal - which law or laws would be in violation here?
1) in 1995 there was very valid concern that because
growth was outstriping router CPU and memory growth that is was
only a matter of time before major routing problems developed;
2) the introduction of CIDR, minimum allocations sizes (no new
assignments longer than /19), and improvements in routing
software, have slowed router table memory and CPU requirements
to much less than improvements in technology are delivering and
can be expected to deliver. In short, the changes have removed
any _need_ to introduce further changes and in fact indicate a
relaxing of rules is more likely;
Did 2 occur after 1? CIDR predates 1995 (see rfc1518 and rfc1519). In
fact, drafts and discussions about it go back to 1992 or earlier I
Which 'improvements in routing software' are we talking about here?
The size of the routing table for machines is less of an issue as
time progresses (providing the growth of the 'net doesn't outstrip
Moore's law) -- but more routes is going to lead to more human errors
and more complicated access-lists, etc.
3) The only route filtering occurring on the Internet
affects connectivity (i.e. backbones with no default route) is
being done on /8's where the minimum allocation size is /19.
With half the root nameservers on /24's, wholesale short prefix
filtering will not occur in the short term. Attempts to predict
long term policy are not valid.
Filtering can be done on a per object basis.
People could quite feasibly refuse to accept routes with excessively
long prefixes for any designated network or networks if they choose
to do so -- this need not impact upon existing networks or indeed the
root name servers.
4) The NZGATE addresses are in a /8 block where the
allocation size was /24;
Is this `just how it is' or shaped by policy -- if the later, can
someone please tell me where I mind find this.
Was 202/8 initially not divided up into much large chunks (eg. /20)?
5) With 40,000+ routes, it's hard to make a case
that the addition
of several hundred routes due to migration is significant (more
than several hundred additional routes are unlikely because of
aggregation and the likelyhood of distribution tending to favor
a few ISPs).
Indeed such a small increase isn't an issue -- so long as it remains
only a small increase. If we decided all networks are portable
regardless of size, then over time severe fragmantation could occur.
1) Iprolink would support a public statement which
migration to new addresses (by explaining the benefits) where it
would not tend increase use of address space.
This very sounds reasonable.
Nobody should be forced to renumber (unless there network is very
small, say /28), but there should be mechanisms which encourage this
As someone else suggested, perhaps when they apply for more network
space, they may first have to agree to relinquish some of their
existing space in order to keep aggregation manageable.
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads: