Numbering issues and WGIG

[Marc Schneiders]

Thanks, Harold, for your breakdown of how these things work in real
life. With IPv6 we will be tied more than ever to a certain ISP. If I
understand it, blocks cannot be used with another ISP. New ISP means
new IP numbers in IPv6. The solution is simple: DNS. It was (and is)
meant to move transparently from one set of IP addresses to another.
>From one ISP to another.
It is like a PO box. Change premisses but keep your address.

I think we do need to fight the charges certain money grabbers want
for public IP number space. The best way to do that is to go to a
competitor of those who charge. Here (Holland, Europe) it is still
possible to get IP addresses for free.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, at 15:57
[=GMT-0400], Harold Feld wrote:

> At 02:52 PM 9/9/2004, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >And you can't get "a single IP address" from any RIR. Perhaps you
> >can from an ISP (I have never tried). The critical constraint here,
> >which few people seem to understand, is the need for route
> >aggregation. In other words, ISPs must be given their addresses
> >in contiguous number blocks so that they can reduce the number of
> >routes identified in their routing tables by lumping those contiguous
> >addresses together into one route. That is why you can't have
> >IP address portability under the current system.
>
>
> As with all things, technology and policy go hand in hand.  The current
> policies evolved from a combination of circumstances: limitations of
> technology, the need to protect legacy systems, and the concerns of the
> people formulating the policy.  There is, and continues to be, implications
> for the real world that result from the purely technical issues of
> routing.  There is, and continues to be, opportunity for the considerations
> of the real world to impact how technical decisions are made.  It is simply
> not the case that these concerns can be casually dismissed as the natural
> order of things.
>
> The issue of noncommercial access to address space, and the impact of
> address allocations on competition, are very significant issues that
> deserve examination.  At this point, the only thing we can recommend is
> serious examination and documentation.  I can only report my own anecdotal
> data that a number of Community Wireless Networks (CWNs) have said they
> can't afford IP address space and therefore are relying heavily on NATs --
> to the detriment of their networks.
>
> I believe the CWNs want to work with the RIRs and the open policy process,
> but many of them don't understand how.  These are often young volunteers
> working to bring connectivity to poor and disenfranchised
> communities.  Unfortunately, the RIRs continue in the fine tradition of
> believing that it is enough to have an open process and that the true
> seeker, like heroes in on a quest of old, must prove their worthiness by
> finding the relevant fora and figuring out on their own how to participate
> (with the help of an FAQ file or two).
>
> The WSIS and the WGIG are broader processes.  They are convened along a
> more traditional public interest model that recognizes that many of the
> people most effected do not have the resources to figure this stuff out on
> their own and lack the capacity to come to the table and participate.
>
> I believe that this constituency, as the voice of noncommercial
> organizations within DNS policy, has a responsibility to raise these issues
> as worthy of further study.  Recommendations are frankly too premature at
> this stage.  While I understand that there is interest in LANIC in
> addressing these concerns, we have little data beyond the anecdotal data
> that I have collected in a relatively short time.  But because WSIS and
> WGIG represent unique and appropriate fora in which to raise the visibility
> of these issues, I believe this constituency should do so.
>
> Harold
>