On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 02:20:54PM +1300, Don Stokes wrote:
apnic-011 already says that, at least for addresses
the NZGate timeframe. I haven't found any other APNIC document
(expired or not) that states APNIC policy toward address ownership.
Assuming we all follow this then -- do we have allow people or users
with small (eg. /26) networks to take them with them should they
decide to move?
Allowing this _without_ any constraints would make fragmentation
Do you have a clause in your service contracts that
explicitly what the position is regarding IP numbers you assign to
clients? Most ISPs do (and all should).
No idea... I speak only for myself, not for any company. I don't look
at the legal bits where possible, thats what marketroids and legal
people are for.
Does it matter?
Yes. If someone is allocated address space for which they are not
specifically told whether or not it should be considered portable or
not, and therefore they wish to take the network with them when they
move providers, we could get considerable fragmentation when many
people with small networks do this.
It does if anyone is allocating address space in new
explicitly stating the "ownership" of addresses, but for the old
addresses it just means that at worst the routing table space taken
up by old addresses doesn't get any smaller.
I don't follow; surely we have a situation where providers in the
past have carved up a say /20 for clients -- and when a client moves
this /20 might then need to become sixeteen /24 routes (or a /21, a
/22, a /23 and two /24 or whatever).
It also matters if an ISP wants to move a bunch old
over to an upstream provider that refuses to deal with them -- so
far the ones that have made noises about refusing small netblocks
this have backed away from that position.
Eventfully as enough /24 are freed up, we will be able to coalesce
adjacent ones into large networks.
What can be done as a technical group is to develop a
how to retire old /24 prefixes and aggregate them into larger
blocks, either through the APNIC's return policy (apnic-072), or
through some local arrangement, without grossly impacting on either
ISP or customer operations.
This seems like a good idea.
I think the first step in this is to get the
aired (I don't think it will be "solved") at the ISOCNZ conference
tomorrow; at least then hopefully we'll have some idea of what
various positions are. I don't think the ex-NZGate issue can be
really proceeded on without that.
Can someone who attends this meeting then please provide some
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads: