Subject: Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:32:32 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>

    > ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's
    > an end run around the DFZ. 
    > some day, the people who are then responsible for global address
    > policy and global internet operations, will end the "tyranny of the
    > core" by which we cripple all network owners in their available
    > choices of address space, based solely on the tempermental fragility
    > of the internet's core routing system. 

This comment interested me, but I want to make sure I understand what
you're getting at. Fully appreciating your comments seems to require
reading between the lines somewhat, so if I make a mistake (below) in
understanding you, please correct it.

What I hear you saying, in your references to the DFZ/core, is that you
aren't happy with the notion that there's a large part of the internetwork
in which more or less all destinations are reachable? If so, in effect,
you're visualizing a system in which reachability is less ubiquitous? I.e.
for a given destination address X, there will be significant parts of the
internetwork from which a packet sent to X will not reach X - and not
because of access controls which explicitly prevent it, but simply because
that part of the internetwork doesn't care to carry routing information for
that destination. Is that right?

Your comment about "available choices of address space" is more opaque.
Are you saying that you'd like parts of the address space to be explicitly
given over to such 'not globally routed' functionality? (I assume that you
are happy with uniqueness, i.e. you're not proposing allocating the same
chunk of address space to two different entities, right?)

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Roger Jorgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:58:43 +0200 (CEST)

>    > of the internet's core routing system.
<snip>
> that destination. Is that right?

what I read into it is... the future internet might not be structured as 
it is today, we might get a "internet" on the side which don't touch the 
DFZ at all. Mostly regionbased traffic...

-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
[email-masked]           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:45:59 +0100

> what I read into it is... the future internet might not be 
> structured as it is today, we might get a "internet" on the 
> side which don't touch the DFZ at all. Mostly regionbased traffic...

WRONG! The future Internet will be structured the SAME as it is today,
mostly region-based traffic. The main exception to that rule is when a
there are countries in different regions which share the same language.
For instance there will always be lots of interregional traffic between
France and Canada, or between Portugal and Brazil.

People who are in the IETF have a warped view of reality because we all
speak English, and since there are English speaking countries in North
America, Europe, southern Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region, it seems
like everything is centralised. In addition, English is the 21st century
lingua-franca so it will always drive a certain level of international
traffic to any country, but moreso to countries like Norway where the
people often learn to speak English better than native English-speaking
people.

Go to a country like Russia and it's a different story. Few people learn
English or any other language well enough to use it. There are no vaste
hordes of English-speaking tourists like in Spain or Italy. But there is
still a vast Internet deployment for the most part separate from the
English-speaking Internet. There the major search engines are Rambler
and Yandeks. Internet exchanges are located in Moskva, Sankt Peterburg,
Nizhniy Novgorod, Samara, Perm', Ekaterinburg, and Novosibirsk. 

It's a basic fact of economics that the majority of transactions in any
point on the globe will always be with nearby points. That's why the USA
buys more goods from Canada than from any other country, in spite of the
fact that Canada is 1/10th the population. Communications volume follows
transaction volume, and therefore, the only reason that the Internet was
not more regional a long time ago, is that the process of shifting
communications from legacy networks to the Internet is a slow process.

--Michael Dillon