On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 03:30:08PM +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
By "all of NZ" you presumably mean
"everybody numbered out of the
No - I mean, the unlikely theoretical situation where APNIC say, "the
allocations are a mess, here are some new numbers, everyone must
renumber within 200 days or we'll be around with a blowtorch and
pliers" or something.
I mentioned it in passing, I didn't mean for it to be taken too
One of the main objectives I was trying to achieve
with my draft
was to avoid placing onerous requirements on any particular network
operator and, in fact, any particular end-user, but at the same
time provide a mechanism which _over_time_ would naturally cause
things to become tidier rather than more messy.
Oh, I quite agree, hence my suggestion that people should first try
to aggregate their networks better, reclaiming smaller networks
firsts having those people move onto address space within their
current provider allocation.
A transition period of 3 months for an end-user to
network (assuming the subnet used by the customer has a
sufficiently narrow mask) is a perfectly good objective, but we
need to make sure that there are mechanisms available for the
operator of the wider supernet to track and enforce the return of
the holes after those three months.
Perhaps something like this then:
/24+ - non transferable, renumbering required for provider
/22+ - renumbering required withing 1 month
/19+ - renumbering required within three months, unless by prior
arrangement with all parties
else - renumbering required within no more than 6 months and no
less than 3 months, unless by prior arrangement with all
This might sound like I'm advocating some kind of
house for addresses within NZ which would impartially manage these
transitions. I'm not -- I think the idea of a centralised point of
management (in this application) is inherently bad and dangerous;
it could be argued that we have already followed (or been led down)
this road with DOMAINZ.
It's already centrally managed as far as allocations go - APNIC.
Apart from the fact they are total nazi bastards, I don't think its
been all that bad.
Central management of existing networks, and future transitions isn't
a good idea, but it would be a nice idea for someone to write up a
code of practise and try to get everyone to agree to that.
Who should write such a thing - logically, someone who has already
done something similar, even if its only a draft....
It's probably also worth mentioning, some people are using non APNIC
allocated address space here - what's the generally consensus on
Something as simple as "when customer X moves
between ISP A and ISP
B, and needs to take her networks with her for up to three months,
this fact will be publicised in a public forum by ISP A and B". A
suitable public forum in this instance might be NZNOG.
Maybe we should look at getting, nznog.org.nz or something similar,
and publishing these details on a more formal basis.
I'm sure someone here can provide web and domain hosting (my
preference is ClearNet here, because that way Joe can do all the
grunt work, but, if need be, I'm happy to provide any or all of the
It would be in ISP A's interests to make the
public, so that there are witnesses :)
Perhaps, all network transitions should be publicised everywhere.
Marketroids won't like it, because it lets the opositions know whats
going on, but in reality, it doesn't tell you anything you can't
It could be argued that there are commercial
announcing customer movement like this, but the information is
there, public, waiting to be read in the routing tables anyway, so
it's hardly sensitive.
Yes, this is what I am eluding too - but if a network moves, even a
simple traceroute will tell you what is going on...
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads: