North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: classful routes redux

  • From: Per Heldal
  • Date: Tue Nov 08 09:18:15 2005

On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 10:46 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> > >This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT*
> > >want to send traffic to any other AS. They only want
> > >to send traffic to customers, vendors or business
> > >partners of some sort.
> > The point I was trying to make is: A site is assigned an AS if it has a
> > network that is connected to the global Internet and wants to send 
> > traffic somewhere.  (If not, why bother to get an AS?) 
> Many companies get an AS in order to exchange traffic
> with other companies across an internetwork that
> IS NOT THE GLOBAL INTERNET!!! There are many internetworks
> separate from the global Internet. These internetworks
> carry traffic between many companies using globally unique
> IP addresses and global unique AS numbers. But these companies
> do not want any of this traffic to transit any part of the
> global Internet and they don't want any form of peering
> with the global Internet.
> Some people seem to think that IP addresses were created 
> in order to allow people to run networks connected to
> the global Internet and that ASes were invented in order
> for such networks to exchange routing policy details on
> the global Internet. THIS IS *NOT* TRUE!
> IP (Internetwork Protocol) addresses were created to allow
> devices to communicate using IP regardless of whether they are
> all connected to a single global Internet or not. And AS numbers
> were created to allow IP networks to exchange routing policy 
> details across any IP network, not just the global Internet.

You need to separate technology from implementation. Anybody is free to
use IP-technology to build their own network for which they define their
own policies. What you refer to as the "global internet" is just one
particular implementation with resource-allocation-policies decided by
its users. 

With no shortage of resources (in this case AS-numbers and IP-addresses)
we wouldn't have this discussion. Then nobody would care how an
organisation is using the resources that are allocated to them. 

Resource-allocation across separate administrative domains doesn't work
when there's a shortage. *If* that happens private networks may need to
establish their own registry for "private ipv4 resources overlapping
with the global internet", so that those resources can be re-used.

> RFC1918 IP addresses were set aside for the special 
> case in which someone is building a *PRIVATE* network.
> Once two organizations interconnect their networks,
> the two networks are no longer private and must use
> globally unique addresses to avoid conflicts. Similarly
> private AS numbers were created for people to build
> private internetworks such as in a lab environment or
> at the edge of the global Internet where the private
> ASes would disappear when routes are aggregated towards
> the core. But if many companies wish to connect their
> networks in an internetwork, separate from the global
> Internet then private AS numbers are required to avoid
> conflicts. 
> So, to answer your question, "Why bother to get an AS?". 
> In order to exchange routing policy details with other
> organizations on one of the many internetworks that 

Nobody is questioning the advantages of globally unique identifiers.
However, administrative resources for the internet are primarily ment to
serve the public. If or when there's a shortage of resources, private
network may have to accept to administer their resources separately.
There is technically no need for these networks to share resources with
the global internet if they have no intention to ever connect to, or
communicates with nodes on, the global network.

> It is important for RIR policymakers to understand
> that the RIRs are not managing Internet resources. 
> They are managing IP (Internetwork Protocol) resources
> that are absolutely essential for ALL users of IP and
> related protocols. These users may not be part of the
> Internet but they still have a right to use these resources
> in order to build their networks.

Wrong. RIRs have no authority outside the resources they've been
assigned from the global pool, and certainly not over networks not
connected to the global internet. RIR's are (as anybody else) free to
take part in the process of developing global policies.

Anybody is free to build their own separate networks and use
IP-technology as they want, but internet registries have no obligation
to administer their resources.