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 10:30:40 2005

On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:48 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> > 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. 
> Thankfully there is no shortage of IP addresses and there
> will be no shortage of AS numbers. The factory has already
> ramped up production of IPv6 addresses and warehouses are
> full. Designs for the new version AS numbers are just about
> past engineering review and the factory is ready to begin
> production.
> > Nobody is questioning the advantages of globally unique identifiers.
> > However, administrative resources for the internet are primarily ment to
> > serve the public.
> And the public *IS* being served by the diversity of
> applications and networks which use the Internet 
> Protocol. The public is served regardless of whether
> the device is on a private network, the global Internet
> or some other internet.
> > 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.
> This is where you are wrong. Primarily this is because
> firewalls make it possible for organizations to run
> a network which connects to BOTH the global Internet
> and one or more private Internets without allowing any
> traffic to transit between these networks or any routing
> information to leak between these networks. Nevertheless,
> the network in the middle needs to use globally unique 
> addresses and both RFC 1918 and RFC 2050 explicitly
> account for such networks. If a network interconnects
> with other networks it is *NOT& a private network and
> therefore it requires globally unique identifiers.

... which is why I specifically said "no intention to ever connect to,
or communicates with nodes on, the global network". In which case
overlaps in adressblocks are irrelevant, as are any mention of NAT and
firewalls as there is no connection (direct or indirect) between the

> > 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.
> RIRs have no authority over networks connected to 
> the global Internet either. RIRs are part of a system
> of self-regulation, not government regulation, and therefore
> have no authority other than the consent of their members.

Authority wasn't the right word perhaps ;) "Operating context" may be a
better term.

> > 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.
> You seem to think that the Internet was created before there
> were nascent RIRs managing internet numbering. 

Nope, when I started networking there was no global network worth
connecting to and sna, decnet or ipx nodes worldwide outnumbered ip by
1000 to one or more. RFC1918 wasn't even on the horizon and there were
lots of ad-hoc built IP networks using randomly selected addresses.
Internet governance was handled by handful of people in IANA.

> It was the other
> way around. Right from the beginning when IP, the internetwork
> protocol, was designed, there was an understanding of the need
> to COORDINATE numbering resources. After a while, so many of
> the young internetworks connected together that people started
> to think and speak of one single global Internet. This is a 
> nice result but IP does not belong to *ONLY* those organizations
> who connect to the global Internet. It is more general than that.

Sure, and that's why you need to separate between the technology
administered through the IETF and *one* particular implementation of it
which happen to be coordinated by a hierarchy of organisations under the
"ICANN-umbrella". Those who don't want to take part in this hierarchy or
communicate with it's network are free to organise their own in whatever
way they please.

> Even though the Internet is the major revenue source for most
> of the companies in which NANOG members work, these companies 
> also operate important IP networks which are *NOT* the Internet.
> It is important to remember this, especially when talking about
> ARIN and other RIRs, ICANN, the IETF, etc. None of these
> organizations serve the global Internet exclusively. They serve
> the body of protocols which make the Internet, and other internets,
> possible.

technology != implementation