[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

[Owen DeLong]

>> I've heard two home users say they don't like having to change IP
>> addresses when they change ISPs.  One of them said they didn't like
>> it because they had to change email addresses and web addresses, and
>> I'm not convinced those are all related.  Should ARIN conduct a poll
>> of random homeowners to see if IP address portability is a common
>> concern?
> 
> A survey would not hurt, but it might not help much either. Most
> politicians are less clueful than their constituents and would equate IP
> address changes with phone number changes because they are represented in
> numerical form. You can argue all day that the name string solves the
> problem, but to the non-technical a number is a number. 
> 
While I would agree that name-based abstraction is a solution in
some contexts, I have to say that it is not a valid assertion for
all contexts of internet usage.  I don't consider myself to be
clueless or non-technical about this stuff.  Doubtless, at least
someone on this list will disagree with my self assessment, but,
I think most would agree.

Do you know of anyone who implements VPN terminations or ACLs based
on names and not addresses?

>> ...
>> There are multiple ways to skin this cat, and permanent assignment
>> of provider-independent is one.  Is it the best one?  To evaluate
>> "best," it's important to understand the implications.
> 
> Yes, and it is important to realize that 'best' is relative to ones
> viewpoint. PA pushes the costs to the edge. Clearly best for the core
> operators, but no so for the edge operators. PI does the inverse. In IPv4
> you were effectively forced to choose one or the other. Multi-homed sites
> essentially required, and end users had a bias toward PI because they did
> not want to deal with renumbering when changing providers. In the IPv6
> design multiple simultaneous prefixes were added to help mitigate the
> renumbering and some of the multi-homing issues. For some organizations
> the multiple prefix approach is still insufficient to deal with their
> multi-homing cases, so we still need to provide PI. Defining PI in a way
> that avoids overwhelming routing and minimizes the need for
> justification/detailed-analysis is the current challenge.
> 
This is why I believe we need to find a way to do core routing based on
numbers that represent topological aggregations, and, leave the end
sites with end system identifiers that are independent of the topological
numbers.  In other words, I think that AS-based routing at the core
with prefix-based routing at the edge and portable prefixes is the
better long term solution.  The only catch is finding a way to either
distribute or resolve the IP->AS(s) mapping in a timely manner.
I think there are existing technologies that can do this.  Sure, SS7
doesn't quite fit the internet model, but, there are lessons to be
learned from it.

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/20060319/98109867/attachment.sig>