IAB and "private" numbering

Sat Nov 12 17:53:47 UTC 2005

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:40:20PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tony Tauber wrote:
>>> The registries (including IANA as their root) should provide just
>>> that, a place to register the use of number resources to avoid collisions.
>>> I'm thinking that "private" number spaces should probably be used
>>> advisedly if not deprecated outright.
>> RIR's are taking heat (or some finger pointing atleast) for allocations
>> that don't appear in the public route table. There are many reasons why

A prefix doesn't have to reside in this beast called 'DFZ' for to be
used. There is (atm) no need for one to announce the address space used
by their cool chocolate factory machines, but maybe in the future one
might want to do it to be able to monitor from the comfort of ones home.
Thus the address space does need to be globally unique.

> i rant, yet again.  
> 
> 	what is this "the" public routing table?  where does one
> 	get it?  in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it.

Have you seen the moon? Touched it? I still can't be convinced that
pluto exists, I haven't seen it, but it appears to be there ;)

> 	i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet.
> 	or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered 
> 	imaginations of marketing droids... and the virus is more virulent
> 	than the H5N1 strain.  Note that it affects normally sane engineers
> 	who KNOW better.

Well I apparently have a lot of nasty viruses floating around in my body
at http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/ I used "DFP" with which I mean:

"Default Free Prefix, a prefix routed without having any smaller
prefixes covering it. Removing such a prefix will make the
prefix unreachable."

DFZ would be the group of all DFP's.

> 	back in the SRInic days, there was the "connected" and "unconnected"
> 	databases.  ... to mark prefixes that were connected to the ARPAnet
> 	and those that were in "private" networks, like CSnet, NSFnet, and
> 	enterprise networks.  Tony is right in this respect, RFC1918 space
> 	is a feeble attempt to get around/past the lack of address space
> 	that became apparent in IPv4 ... with IPv6, there is no real 
> 	reason to try and recreate private space (leaving aside renumbering)

Indeed.

> 	IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP
> 	protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing
> 	is the right course.  every other attempt to split the assignements
> 	into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.

Absolutely. Address space is there to address hosts and thus should be
made available to places that have a hosts.

The only issues at a certain point will become routing table size and
that is the new problem to fix, there is now "enough" address space.
(Taking into consideration that 2000::/3 is only 1/8th of the total IPv6
address space and that we can peep up 8 times before it runs out :)

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 238 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051112/46bbab79/attachment.sig>