[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Owen DeLong]

--On November 3, 2005 11:25:43 AM -0800 Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:

> Paul Vixie wrote:
>> ...
>> # 
>> # True, though if things get too out of hand the bunch at the UN has the
>> # regulatory power to encourage conformance.
>> 
>> um, no.  actually, the UN does not have (and should not have, and will
>> never
>> have) that kind of regulatory power.
> 
> As the UN true, but the membership has those powers within their own
> sovereign realm. All they need to do is convince each other to play along.
> 
This is straying _WAY_ off the topic at hand, but, the ITU is the closest
you
can come to an organized empowerment of this nature, and, fortunately, in
spite of their recent efforts in this direction, they don't yet have the
power to do so.


> Your comments seem to ignore that there are already people that reverse
> engineer the RIR allocations to derive the geo-political information they
> want for their firewalls. Yes power is derived from managing information
> flow and every group would like simpler tools for exercising
> restrictions. 
> 
However, these are well known to be only marginally accurate in their
results.  There are lots of ARIN allocations that have presence in
EMEA and APAC, many APNIC allocations with addresses in the Americas,
and, many RIP allocations with presence outside of EMEA.  It works
as a rule of thumb, but, it doesn't work as an absolute.

> In any case my comments were not about managing firewalls, they were
> focused on the need for network operators to weed out the crap that
> unnecessarily consumes resources in their routers. There is a direct
> conflict between those that want to overlay their policy on the world and
> those that want the ability to control their own resources. Right now the
> first group is running amuck and the second is paying the price. The
> second group needs a rational tool that will allow them to push back.
> 
What both groups need, actually, is a separation between the IDR locator
and the End System Identifier.  This would allow routing to work in a
manner similar to Telco style LNP and I think would solve most of the
issue in question.  The reality is that the desire to push policy
globally is less than the desire to be non-dependent on or locked
into any particular ISP and to have some control over ones own
destiny.  Currently, the only mechanism for doing that is to take
up a global policy slot.  Your approach provides a mechanism for
making that expensive, but, it doesn't address the actual needs
of the community.

> There are always going to be conflicting perspectives and people will tend
> to favor the approach that draws on their experience base. This often (but
> not necessarily in your case) causes them to overlook or under appreciate
> the pain that approach will cause from another perspective. PI, Shim6, and
> A6 all solve different problems. They are related in that they have roots
> in multi-homed sites, but one solves edge autonomy, one application
> persistence, and the other core flexibility. Using any one to address the
> concerns of the others receives howls of incompetence. 
> 
True enough, but, PI is, so far, the only one of them that solves the
problems that are being expressed by actual organizations that want
to adopt V6 but aren't willing to give up capabilities that exist
in V4 to do so.  Yes, because the V6 working group didn't deliver on
their promises, PI has all the same problems in V6 that it did in
V4.  However, the reality is that when TUBA was abandoned years ago,
it was because there was a promise of solving this and other problems
in a "better" V6.  Now, what we have is a bloated version of TUBA
and still a low adoption rate.  I'm starting to think that if we
don't change how routing works in V6, V6 may be essentially still born.


> Viewed from the bottom up. Regulators often view from the top down, so
> countries fit more in their perspective of scale. I am not suggesting that
> regulation is the right path, just that if it exists it will probably have
> broader reach.
> 
The regulation may have broader scope, but, obtaining compliance over
any portion of the internet greater than a city is challenging due to
the nature of the internet.  Often, large-scale regulation is perceived
as damage and simply routed around.

In any case, can we try to refocus the discussion on what is/is not an
appropriate modification to make to 2005-1 to generate useful policy?

Thanks,

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20051103/8e3510ab/attachment.sig>