Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:30:11 +0100 (GMT+0100) From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@grumpy.net.na> To: michael@memra.com (Michael Dillon) Cc: IAP@VMA.CC.ND.EDU, inet-access@earth.com, linuxisp@jeffnet.org, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, os2-isp@dental.stat.com Subject: Re: Internet MELTS DOWN AT END 1996?? Message-ID: <199609142230.XAA04286@linux.lisse.NA> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.93.960913232238.19498M-100000@sidhe.memra.com> from "Michael Dillon" at Sep 14, 96 00:35:42 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael, you make some very good points... > G) This thing about trade laws is silly. Trade laws have no effect > whatsoever on technology and technical capability. If there was > a law that an airline could not refuse you a seat on an airline > if you were there an hour ahead of time, would it make any difference? > No, because when the plane is full, it is full and laws cannot > change that. Ah well, if it's a train that the law says has to take you on board if it is full, they just hang on another wagon. > I) The Internet has *ALWAYS* been on the verge of collapse and > probably always will be. This is better known as the free market > as opposed to a monopoly market. The telcos have a monopoly > so they can make you pay big bucks for an over-engineered network. > But in a free market situation, the tier 1 NSP's, the tier 2 RNP's > (Regional Network Providers) and the ISP's at tier 3 only add > capacity when customers are ready to order and pay for that > capacity. This is good because it keeps prices under control and > relatively flat rate. This is hardly free market, the tier 1 NSPs have a monoploy. > Q) The column talks about Sprint's route filters as if they target small > ISP's when in reality they target small networks who also have the > mistaken idea that they can bypass the address allocation hierarchy and > still get working addresses. Then it talks about address crowding which > has nothing whatsoever to do with Sprint's filters. The filters are > there as part of the impetus to reduce the size of the global routing > table so it is not filled with garbage like this: > > 208.10.16/24 Fred's ISP --> send to Big ISP > 208.10.17/24 Widget World --> send to Big ISP > 208.10.18/24 Malls Electric --> send to Big ISP > 208.10.19/24 Billy's BBS --> send to Big ISP > > Instead it should look like this > > 208.10.16/22 Some BIG ISP customers --> send to Big ISP > > which takes up less global routing table space and still > gets the traffic where it is supposed to go. But this is not a technical requirement, this is a financial matter. *AND* in order to make these decisions one must have a mandate. In other words, *WHO* authorized the IETF to make such decisions? I certainly didn't. > U) The hierarchical IP numbering scheme being discussed is in fact the > scheme in place today and it has been so for some time. The IETF and > IANA merely want to document this scheme and clarify it by publishing > a Best Common Practices RFC so that it is easier for everybody to > understand and explain what is going one. If this would cause you > hardship, tough bananas! That's life. This is how things are in order > to make the Internet operate effectively and if you didn't know this > and make engineering and business plans accordingly then that's > your problem. But it's never too late to educate yourself and to > adjust your engineering and your policies to lessen the negative > impact of hierarchical addressing. It's not life. It's not how things are. It's how companies with leverage find it expedient to enforce. > Z) There is no power in owning IP address blocks because at the > present time IP addresses are not owned. Right now the power > is in having a *WORKING* IP address block and that is intimately tied > in to your choice of upstream provider. And if you change providers > then you will have to change IP address blocks in order to retain > that power of having a working address. Well, again, no mythical body, or a NIC that I did not authorize to do so can decide what I have to do with my CIDR block(s). And fortunately ours is allocated by NIC (as it should) and not by our upstream provider, who however announces the aggregate. Again, I do understand the reason for the way they are going about it, but I don't agree with them. And just because they have leverage doesn't make it right. And I would think sooner or later an ISP will ask a federal judge what he thinks about it. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Swakopmund State Hospital <el@lisse.NA> * | Resident Medical Officer Private Bag 5004 \ / +264 64 461503 (pager) 461005 (h) 461004 (f) Swakopmund, Namibia ;____/ Zone/Domain Contact for the NA-DOM Vice-Chairman, Board of Trustees, Namibian Internet Development Foundation, an Association not for Gain. NAMIDEF is the Namibian Internet Service Provider.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609142230.XAA04286>