|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IP renumbering timeframe
Grant, On 5/6/02 11:03 AM, "Grant A. Kirkwood" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just how big should the DFZ be? > What are we trying to solve here? Solve? I wasn't under the impression that anyone was trying to solve anything. Venting of unhappiness, perhaps? But perhaps I'm too cynical... > AFAIK, the policy exists because of the > supposed "shortage" of IP space. That is not my understanding. Or rather, this wasn't the basis of policies defined in RFC 2050 or any subsequent policies that I'm aware of (perhaps to the chagrin of those pushing IPv6). IPv4 address space is a _limited_ resource, not necessarily (currently) a scarce resource. The policies described in RFC 2050 documented existing registry address delegation policies established in a (sometimes excruciatingly painful) free-for-all with the ISPs, the IEPG, the IETF CIDRD and ALE working groups, and the various local, national, and regional registries. Look at the introduction of RFC 2050, in particular, the three goals listed. > Let's not regurgitate the "basement-multihomers" discussion. Ah yes, number 2'ing in the pool. I won't mention it if you won't. In any event, the whole point here is that if everybody and their brother start announcing (and withdrawing) routes into the DFZ, ISPs will have two choices: A) watch their routers become non-responsive or crash and (hopefully) reboot B) filter announcements to keep the routing tables and thrash within reason Historically, ISPs have chosen "B" (Hi Sean! :-)). You'll note that it is the ISPs (not the registries) that have control over what gets into routing tables. Make life hard for the folks that have full routes and they'll make life hard for you. Yes, you can lie through your teeth on address space allocation requests. You'll probably even get away with it (although in my experience, it is surprising how difficult people find staying consistent with their lies). However, as with dumping dioxins into the water table, the end result is somewhat less than appealing. Rgds, -drc
|