[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Thu Apr 21 06:44:06 EDT 2005
Lea and all,
Conversely dear Lea, thank you for your anti-rant (and less than
thought-provoking) anti-rant at that. Oh yes, and don't forget
to CYA whenever you can, naturally... >;)
Lea Roberts wrote:
> dear Randy -
> thanks for a very thoughtful (and thought-provoking) rant (and don't
> forget to </rant> :-).
> I hope we can come up with some criteria that will break the current
> log-jam while being as careful as possible. I hope (and am fairly
> confident) that you will continue to provide your viewpoint on our
> efforts. /Lea
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> > <rant>
> > *nobody* likes to renumber, end users, isps, ... and some of us
> > speak from serious experience doing so.
> > no organization wants to rely on any other organization for their
> > address space. when viewed through very small glasses, it makes
> > perfect business sense. end sites don't want to rely on isps.
> > isps would prefer not to have to go through the rirs. rirs would
> > prefer not to go through iana. and the iana does not want to be
> > responsible to anybody. all nice, but give me a break. this is a
> > global network; wear larger glasses.
> > the promises of easy renumbering etc. in ipv6 were total bs. the
> > promises of routing table limitation in ipv6 have turned out the
> > same.
> > no one who has been around the block is willing to bet one bowl of
> > ugali that the ivtf or anyone else is going to come up with routing
> > and multi-homing magic in the next five years. some of us doubt
> > the problem will be solved at all usefully for real operations for
> > far longer than five years, though we would dearly and desperately
> > love to be proven wrong, and are contributing to the effort to
> > prove ourselves wrong.
> > no one actually knows, in a measurement sense, the elasticity of
> > the global bgp routing system. but folk who are responsible for
> > budgets, engineering networks, and deploying routers do know that
> > being able to have enough horses to haul the load is having a
> > serious impact on capex, and are not made happy at the thought of
> > rampant routing growth on either their margins or on the technical
> > stability of the internet. those of us with grayer and/or less
> > hair have actually seen real global routing crashes, and don't want
> > to explain them to the nyt, dhs, or clueless power grabbers in
> > well-cut suits again.
> > folk actually measuring ipv6 deployment know that the actual *use*
> > of ipv6 is negligible at best, in north america, south america,
> > europe, africa, oceania, and asia all rolled together. read the
> > previous sentence again, actual use of ipv6 is negligible at best.
> > likely there are more ipv6 address assigned than there are packets
> > pushed in a day. it's still research lab stuff.
> > and we all know in our black little hearts that the most
> > significant factor in this is that ipv6 does not really offer the
> > u$er anything that they can perceive sufficiently to spend money to
> > start moving actual use or operations to v6. the end user does not
> > know or care about address space, renumbering, nats, ... they just
> > want their mtv, and are only willing to pay $19.95 a month for it.
> > in a sense, this is good, users should not have to care about all
> > the stuff we have to care about; you should not have to be a
> > mechanic to drive a car.
> > sure, we need to allow folk who really need and can justify (e.g.
> > see drc's msg of earlier today) end site allocations to get them,
> > both in v4 and v6, and in a consistent manner [ note that i have
> > been pushing micro-allocation in ipv4 for many years, with long and
> > strong resistance from cjw, and other folk now becoming more
> > liberal in the v6 world ].
> > but, as no one has yet to come up with any of the promised magic,
> > we really have no basis to predict the future other than some
> > epsilon off the lessons of the past. and some of those lessons are
> > o routing tables do make global messes when not treated with
> > prudence and conservation.
> > o when there is user and business incentive to do so, sites,
> > isps, users, ... will go through the pains of dealing with
> > rirs, provider space, ...
> > o it is hard to find a good compromise in this space, but we have
> > to do so, and have been doing so for a long while; do not
> > panic.
> > o but imprudent blow-out of any one (or more) of the dimensions
> > in tension, at the expense of the others, will lead to articles
> > in the nyt, wsj, and people who wear strange clothes.
> > this is not easy. there are no simple answers of which i am aware.
> > and progress will not be fast, certainly not enough to be a
> > marketing force for ipv6. but, history tells us that if we are not
> > careful, we pay big-time in the long run.
> > randy
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827
More information about the ARIN-PPML