Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion2000-08-14 11:30:03I'm not going to play any more. Brian Sean Doran wrote: Fuel for the B Ark... Brian Carpenter writes: | Sorry, this makes no sense at all. There is no way to "restrict" | certain types of domain name that has any meaningful effect Eh? I can assure you that my colleagues and I will defend the brand value of, for example, ebone.net, by only delegating subdomains to Approved Entities. I am sure this is true of IBM.COM, and could be true of a hypothetical owner of e.g. kids.tm or .kids. Likewise, I can assure you that two of the national top level domains I have history with vigorously and assiduously "restrict" access to their TLDs according to policies established by the "owners" of the rights in that TLD as identified by the IANA. "Defend" here also implies -- and in some cases has meant -- actual removal of the subdomain delegation entirely when the "brand rules" (or TLD rules, where the TLD is effectively a brand) are violated. | given the absence of international jurisdiction, and IP addresses | relate to network topology not to content It's very simple - if you want a piece of my "branded" TLA, you have to be logically connected to my network. In order for that to occur, you first and foremost have to agree to my brand's rules, and secondly have to have a virtual connection to my TLA, or in a CIDR sense, you have to be able to announce subnets. This *is* done with IPv4 now -- in fact, IBM itself announces various subnets of 4.0.0.0/8 (e.g. 4.22.193.0/24) and 9.0.0.0/8 (e.g. 9.2.0.0/16, 9.3.4.0/24, 9.3.5.0/24 (why not aggregate?), 9.20.0.0/17, ...). Presumably the ASes originating the longer prefixes have negotiated with and gotten an OK from the entities delegated the original covering prefixes. If we can make that last assumption -- that any globally announced holes blown into a CIDR-style prefix have an OK from the "owner" of the TLA -- then surely those holes and anything abstracted by using logical connectivity rather than announcing longer prefixes count as "restricting the address space". Obviously this is a fine thing to fit into the next revision of draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-01.txt, since IPv6 has the cool property of multihoming-done-by-source/dest-address-pair- selection, and clearly [SELECT] should say that kids-safe end systems (e.g., in classrooms, at libraries) MUST always prefer a kids-safe prefix, even if using that kids-safe prefix is not the optimal choice in terms of fewest hops, shortest delay, highest availability, lowest loss, or some other metric. | so they can't be used | in this way, whatever misapprehensions some of the commission members may | be under. No, no, they are really on to something. They should push for: 1/ a formal policy that makes a string of numbers an item of intellectual property (following 1-800-FLOWERS example) 2/ an entity which is "kids safe" to be granted sole use of a particular IPv6 routing prefix, and which will advertise the existence of this "kids safe" prefix to all and sundry, and will facilitate the use of addresses from within the prefix by approved "kids safe" hosts, by -- including but not limited to -- i/ forming a virtual topology to which "kids-safe" hosts, sites, or ISPs can connect (a la 6bone) ii/ negotiating with ISPs the carriage of globally-visible subnets of the "kids-safe" prefix in some future "native" IPv6 internet, if and only if the "kids-safe" protection body approves the delegation of a complete subnet 3/ the adoption by the IETF of a "pre-fabricated" source/destination address pair selection algorithm which will at the very least: -- always choose the "kids-safe" source address (when sending SYNs to web servers, for example) -- raise an alarm or reject connections which are not to or from a "kids-safe" source or destination It is very clear that IPv6's approach to multihoming is infinitely superior to IPv4 + CIDR's multihoming scheme, and I am glad to see that even politicians recognize the opportunities that arise as a result of this wonderful new technology. Sean.
|
|