Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> Mike, david conrad is correct in what he says about routing
> registries and small isps, they complain vociferously but there are
> valid technical reasons for what has been done, and since the number
> of isps has grown from maybe 1000 five years ago to about 10,000 now
> . of course the non portability of small address blocs has meant
> the growth of NAT boxs which prevents an end to end transparency for
> protocols like IPSEC which makes brian carpenter unhappy. it is part
> of the kludges that scaled the internet so quickly over this period.
Protocols and routing systems are always being changed and adapted.
But they are being changed and adapted to suit the needs of certain
participants and not others. The priorities aren't clear, in part
because the needs of the smaller users of addresses, who actually
comprise the majority, have not been taken sufficiently into
consideration. There may be a need for a hierarchy in routing, but
there is never a need for a hierarchy in priorities and
accessibility. And the problem with the present system of allocation
of addresses (and of routing, too, of course) is that it allows a
centralizing authority like ICANN to determine policy. If that were
not so, no NewCo could pretend to organize an ASO without the ISPs,
and a DNSO without the end-users.
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
