Re: ownership, leasing, renumbering, and that draft

["Robert A. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>]

At 01:16 8/23/95, Tony Li wrote:
>   Whether the two organizations (neither of whom, lets assume, is not NOW
>   connected to the Internet) decide to connect via private direct links or
>   establish the private connection via transmitting through the Internet
>   (those gaining the ability to later connect to other sites) you still have
>   the need for the two networks to be mutually unique (the easiest way to
>   insure this, of course, is to get official certified global unique
>   addresses from InterNIC or their respective regional NIC registries) so
>   there is no difference between the two situations (ie: The private link
>   interconnect is a subset of the Connect via the Internet Set [there is no
>   requirement that the link to the Internet be used for anything other than
>   to transit the Net to the other organization's Internet Gateway]).
>
>   Not providing for the support of all [or a statistically significant
>   portion of the] currently non-connected but allocated Network Numbers by
>   any means other than saying "Tough Luck - You did not connect soon enough
>   and now must renumber as a prerequisite to being allowed to connect" and,
>   since it currently is not a problem since the networks do not yet exist ON
>   the Internet, sweeping the question under the rug by letting someone-else
>   worry about what to do when they actually attempt to connect is VERY short
>   sighted.
>
>[Congratulations, you win the award for sentences of the week and
>month.  ;-)]

Thanks <g>. Upon rereading it, the footnotes/parenthetical-comments are a
little thick - aren't they? I did go a little over board with annotating my
two statements.

>One thought is to explicitly say that these folks must renumber.  If
>I've parsed this correctly, you should find this an improvement.
>Correct?

That depends on if they were using RFC1597 Networks or if they had OFFICIAL
Internet Network Numbers.

Use of RFC1597 Networks might require that the renumbering if there were
conflicts in the existing number or to avoid conflicts in the future (if
the Internet was going to be used for the connection, then renumbering or a
NAT would be REQUIRED). Getting official numbers (even for private links)
only postpones the problem since if at a later date one or both want to get
Internet connectivity they may be forced to renumber by their provider.

The use of OFFICIAL network numbers in the first place would allow the
connection via a leased line connection or via transport over the Internet
Backbone (if the Routing Announcements were allowed to be propagated).
Renumbering is only an issue in the latter case when the providers want to
block the original network numbers.

I think that if they have assigned network numbers that they should be
allowed to connect and make use of them without the manditory requirement
to get rid of them and replace them with new numbers.