Numbering issues and WGIG

[Harold Feld]

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