RE: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Hi Joao,
A new draft requesting expansion of RFC 1918 space by adding 3 /8s to space reserved for private use.
Given the presented justification (see introduction):
"Given the policies for acquiring additional public space it is not reasonable for them to acquire such space for use in their private networks. "
what is the word "them" referring to? Or should I just read this draft (on top of some other MByte of stuff that should be read ;-)
I am left a bit confused about the statement and would like to have the wg request the RIPE NCC to ask the author for further clarification
Regards, Joao Damas
Thanks, Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1 ?)
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Or should I just read this draft (on top of some other MByte of stuff that should be read ;-)
Its only a short draft, but I'm in disbelief that "A number of organizations have expanded their autonomous private networks to the point of exhausting the address space identified in RFC 1918" Sounds more like poor / lazy / classful subnetting to me, of which the cure is is not allocating another 3 /8's of otherwise usuable globally unique IP space. We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm amazed. Regards James
Hi, On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:00PM +0100, James A. T. Rice wrote:
We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm amazed.
Full ACK. Speaking as networking person, not as co-chair. The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space means 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full /8s". So how to proceed? Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or just a private draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the politics here. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space means 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full /8s".
So how to proceed?
spend time from now to meeting doing productive (i.e. other) things. at meeting, give it five minutes on the agenda, just in case there is something not obvious and useful hidden in this. after meeting, get back to productive work.
Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or just a private draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the politics here.
who cares? why care? any idiot can publish an internet-daft; i myself demonstrated this many times until harold fired me and i got a life. judge it on its merits, or lack thereof. imiho, it has no merit. randy
--On Friday, April 23, 2004 06:06:09 -0700 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
spend time from now to meeting doing productive (i.e. other) things. at meeting, give it five minutes on the agenda, just in case there is something not obvious and useful hidden in this. after meeting, get back to productive work.
<AOL>
judge it on its merits, or lack thereof. imiho, it has no merit.
<AOL> -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
Well, my request was for the NCC, which has the time and the mission to follow this stuff closely, to ask the author for clarification (rather than make any assumptions) and then let us know Joao On 23 Apr, 2004, at 14:57, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:00PM +0100, James A. T. Rice wrote:
We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm amazed.
Full ACK. Speaking as networking person, not as co-chair.
The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space means 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full /8s".
So how to proceed? Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or just a private draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the politics here.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, James A. T. Rice wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Or should I just read this draft (on top of some other MByte of stuff that should be read ;-)
Its only a short draft, but I'm in disbelief that "A number of organizations have expanded their autonomous private networks to the point of exhausting the address space identified in RFC 1918"
Sounds more like poor / lazy / classful subnetting to me, of which the cure is is not allocating another 3 /8's of otherwise usuable globally unique IP space.
We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm amazed.
Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas that might need that many. -Hank
Regards James
Hank Nussbacher
| > We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If | > these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm | > amazed. | | Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas | that might need that many. IPv6. I do not see any good in allocating even one /8 in additional private address space. -- Met vriendelijke groet, BIT BV / Ing P.B. van Pelt PBVP1-RIPE (PGPKEY-4DCA7E5E)
Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il> writes:
We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm amazed.
Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas that might need that many.
Well, such providers have to prepare for mergers anyway. They have to plan for NAT between private addrss space, no matter how much such space there is. I think address space can be put to better use than burning it that way. -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.
participants (9)
-
Florian Weimer -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
James A. T. Rice -
Joao Damas -
Måns Nilsson KTHNOC -
Pim van Pelt -
Randy Bush -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet