[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Tue Nov 1 22:04:18 EST 2005
Paul Vixie wrote:
> tony, i suspect that we're talking past each other so let's stop soon, ok?
I am trying to be responsive, but if I am not getting your point that
response will be meaningless...
> # ... The super-regional addresses are the source of the pain in the
> # system so why shouldn't they carry the cost?
> whose pain? certainly from a multinational DFZ ISP's point of view, the
> of super-regional addresses is a great source of pain, since the
> they enable is only good for their competitors, whereas the cost is
> but for everybody else, maybe the pain of buying fatter routers is
> considering that it levels the playing field a little.
This depends on you perspective. If those with big wallets want to set a bar
that says 'you must have this much cash to play', then yes fatter routers
levels the playing field for those who make the cut. For the players that
don't make the cut though that level field they can't enter does them no
> # Multi-homing within a region does have impact on the routers serving
> # region, but ONLY the routers within that region.
> you're still basing assertions on a premise i've disputed, which is that
> are only a few very fat pipes between some kind of regions (maybe
> and that this trend will continue. i don't think it's true now, and i
> think there are any natural reasons for it to ever be more true than it is
> and i think that regionalized (geographic or otherwise) addressing would
> be an
> unnatural way to cause this to become truer, and that if it becomes truer,
> internet industry as a whole will become even more brittle than it is, and
> end users will suffer for it, as will various shareholders.
The assertion is based on the fact that there are a limited number of fiber
runs under the oceans. Yes that number is more than 1, but it is not
numbered in the thousands, and will continue to be limited over time due to
costs. There is no reason for a network in New York to know the gory details
of the traffic engineering in Beijing, any more than the networks in Beijing
need to know the details of local delivery in New York.
The entire concept of a global DFZ with detailed traffic engineering
overlays has been about raising the bar to prevent entry by new players.
That approach is not required for bit delivery to work. Bit delivery is
possible using transit providers interconnecting exchange based aggregates,
and that would be no more brittle than what we currently have.
> if you want to presume benefits of regionality, then first either show me
> we have regionality now, or show me the other market or technological
> that will lead to more regionality over time, and then we can talk about
> whether a regionalized addressing system has a shadow it can travel
> or whether regionalized addressing will MAKE a new shadow on the
If you go back to the original IPv6 allocation mechanism you will see that
it was all about regionalizing the space. I am not defending it just noting
that it started from the premise that there were only a few transit
providers and that all of their customers would be contained within their
region as aggregates of the transit and never show up in the global routing
system. This was not an acceptable business arrangement for the non-transit
providers so we have the current plan where anyone that can claim they are a
provider gets independent space. Of course this still leaves their customers
locked within the regional aggregate of that non-transit provider. The edge
customers are claiming the same problem with the business arrangement, and
if we allocate sequential space to them like we do to the providers there
will be a swamp over time.
Fundamentally we don't have a good way to constrain the routing system
except to abstract out the details of non-local networks. Non-local can be
defined in a variety of ways, and I am just suggesting that geography is one
of those ways.
> # > # There is no reason for ARIN to even bother with evaluating 'need' or
> # > # 'appropriate use' of PI space as long as there is a way for
> providers to
> # > # aggregate out the ones that have not paid enough to support a global
> # > # slot.
> # >
> # > if we're going to do provider-centric address allocation design, why
> # > we say we wanted PI space at all? how about we allocate space based
> # > need and appropriate use, and let providers compete on how well they
> # > serve their customers?
> # I didn't say they were provider centric, just that they could be
> # out.
> it's because you said that providers could aggregate them out, that i
> that you must be looking at this in a provider centric way.
No, just that the provider is the one looking to reduce the resource
consumption, so if they have a way to deliver the bits without extraneous
knowledge they will shed as much as they can.
> # In any case, who gets to decide the value of 'need' and why do they get
> # decide that?
> providers and endusers are both members of the community. it should be
> job to understand and balance their needs. i'm not even sure there is any
> conflict between the needs of providers' and endusers' in the long run,
> i do know that a policy that will singularly benefit only one of these
> communities of interest is a mistake or at least uninteresting.
We completely agree here about the need for balance. I do see a conflict
though in that everyone wants to have their hand on the knob of
fine-grained-traffic-engineering. Allowing everyone to express their policy
in the global view just adds to bloat.
> # > then let such cities get themselves some address space, build an
> # > exchange, build a wireless network, number their citizens, and let
> # > providers compete over the result. ARIN's current policies would
> # > this. (and it's a damned damned DAMNED fine idea.)
> # ARIN policy allows this, but there is an external conflict in 'use of
> # funds to compete with industry'.
> i'm sure that there's an industry out there ready to do just about
> any given city does, including police and fire, sewage, road maintainance,
> etc. the decision of "what should government do?" is not decided solely
> "what wouldn't be worst for industry?" but rather "what would be best for
> in this case the citizenry (me for example) would rather have my streets
> up the fewest number of times, would like multiprovider address
> would like a lockin-free market where i can choose the provider of
> communications services. i'd like my city to provide that to me, because
> would still require industry to provide the next leg -- transit, in this
> as well as contract construction and management services to the city --
> stabilizing the delivery of commodity communications services and probably
> stabilizing the finances of the various industry players so we're not
> wondering who's going bankrupt next or who's buying whom next or whatever.
> but we digress.
I agree with your goal, but recent WiFi efforts show that no matter how lame
the deployments by industry are, as soon as a city steps up for the good of
their citizens those lethargic providers will cry foul.
> # It really doesn't matter if the exchange operator is a city, a
> consortium of
> # ISPs, or an independent enterprise as in the current set.
> actually, it does. regulation of the real estate required for last-mile
> absolutely critical to the success of what i'm describing.
> # The bottom line is that all the 'insanity' that is necessary to sort
> # things out within the city/region is contained at that exchange and the
> # transit providers have a clean demarc to compete over.
> i think we agree! but only at the city or metro level, in my view.
> but we REALLY digress.
I really don't care about the scale. My attempt has been to define an
approach that is devoid of any geo-political context. There will always be
policies that overlay on any mechanism and distort the outcome, but trying
to design something for current political structures is a simple way to
ensure they don't fit in the future.
> # One of the biggest issues that gets overlooked is that we are not
> # to choosing one or the other. PA space is fine for those that don't
> # where the space comes from.
> people who don't care where the space comes from are often simply
> undereducated rather than actively disinterested. ask someone "would you
> rather have address space that you can take to a new provider with you, or
> address space that you'd have to renumber out of if you change providers?"
> and you'll get a very modal result, peaking with the larger network owners
> who will generally prefer NAT over PA once they understand the
We agree about the education point, though I would put it as the educated
will take the path of lowest cost and renumbering is a high cost. The
difference being that NAT is a higher cost than PI, but current policies
essentially raise the cost of PI above NAT. That might be justified with the
limited pool in IPv4, but there is no reason for the RIRs to take that
approach with IPv6. At the same time blindly allocating sequential PI space
is known to have a negative impact on the routing system, so we need
> # Some entities (including DNS roots) have needs that don't fit in the PA
> # model. The current debate is about who gets to pass judgment on the
> value of
> # 'need'. The most effective judge of value is the organization requesting
> # resource. If they are presented with a menu of resource bundles and
> # they can make the clear determination of the bundle that actually meets
> # their need with the value measure that will naturally pushback to keep
> # from demanding more than they need.
> that would be a fine thing. the PA/PI split enabled by CIDR didn't leave
> a choice nearly as viable as that. i don't think regionalized (geo or
> otherwise) addressing would leave any viable choices open, either, but we
> could get to the point of discussing that if we could agree on some
I guess I don't see how PA is even a consideration in this model, unless it
is considered the lowest item on the menu where the PA consumer is not a
direct member of ARIN. Maybe you are suggesting that the PA blocks
themselves would just be additional menu choices.
The geo approach in my draft doesn't particularly fit either since it simply
pre-allocates space and there is no need to justify to anyone for use of the
space, just the need to convince a provider to route it.
> # A sequential allocation of PI space creates the swamp that becomes
> # impossible to deal with over time. A structured allocation builds the
> # that down the road it is possible to enforce exchange point based
> # aggregation if and/or where that becomes necessary. It really doesn't
> # what structure you choose, the constraint of topology to fit that
> # is what reduces the impact on the routing system. The point is to think
> # about ways to allocate PI space that will allow for long terms options.
> you're getting way ahead of yourself. assuming we agreed that there was
> some kind of regionality now, and was going to continue to be any, we'd
> to decide whether geographic, or topological, or linguistic, or cultural
> regionality made the most sense as outer-block address pool boundaries.
> whole topic area strikes me as a swamp when i consider the variables
> and it's bothering me that you keep acting as if they're all known
I don't mean to act as if the boundaries are known. I was simply trying to
suggest that this is the real discussion point. Right or wrong there will
continue to be political/national interests in defining the boundaries
differently than the current provider/large-business biased practice. ARIN
needs to find a way of representing the interests of the small user
(typically not in the room) to respond to this political assault. Building
in value judgments will only embolden the political efforts.
More information about the ARIN-PPML