Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Thu, 02 August 2012 20:30 UTC
Return-Path: <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4FA11E808E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7ZR6vWBJ74x for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salak.cc.columbia.edu (salak.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF5411E8087 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.9.0.82] (fireball.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.13.10]) (user=smb2132 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by salak.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q72KU1H6012340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <B6033EB2-3B90-4524-A123-38852C5E2698@virtualized.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4401D68C-F9BB-4777-845A-A7011C50F1EA@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <20120802184436.87A0318C11F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <B6033EB2-3B90-4524-A123-38852C5E2698@virtualized.org>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.6
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:30:15 -0000
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:24 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:44 AM, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: >>> we should instead focus on the ways that the technical architecture of >>> the Internet creates control points that are vulnerable to capture and >>> consider ways in which those control points can be made capture-proof. >> >> Agreed. > > The challenge of course is that one of the simple/efficient mechanisms to implement desirable features (e.g., security, scalability, manageability) is to create hierarchies, but those very hierarchies provide control points that can (at least in theory) be captured. The DNS root is one such, the proposed RPKI root is another. Perhaps a variation of the Software Engineering Dilemma ("fast, good, cheap: pick two") applies to Internet architecture: secure, scalable, manageable: pick two? > >>> If the ITU-T wants to also be in the business of handing out IPv6 >>> address names then give then a /21 or a /16 and tell them to go >>> party. > > I don't think this is what the ITU is after. My impression is that the ITU is arguing that member states should get the /<whatever> directly. > >> I basically agree. It could have negative impacts on the routing, by impacting >> route aggregatability, but it can hardly be worse that those bletcherous PI >> addresses, so if it makes them happy to be in charge of a large /N, why not? > > I believe the routing scalability risk lies not in the allocation body, but rather the policies imposed around the allocations. That is, imagine a world of 200+ National Internet Registries instead of 5 Regional Internet registries. If the government behind an NIR then decides that to use the Internet in their country, you must use addresses allocated by the NIR of that country, you then run the risk of having 200+ prefixes for each entity that operates globally. This risk could be addressed if it didn't matter where you get your addresses, however that isn't true with the existing model and there are political pressures that would likely ensure that it would not be true in the NIR model. It also implies entry into a country through a few official gateways/exchange points -- that way, there are only ~200 entries plus your own country's that you need in your RIB... (Telecom used to be that way -- PTTs and other monopolies (e.g., AT&T) loved it.) --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
- ITU-T Dubai Meeting Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Noel Chiappa
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting SM
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting David Conrad
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Steven Bellovin
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Doug Barton
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Steven Bellovin
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Doug Barton
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Dmitry Burkov
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Daniel Karrenberg
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Patrik Fältström
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Ole Jacobsen
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting David Conrad
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Mark Andrews
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Dmitry Burkov
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting SM
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Daniel Karrenberg
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Randy Bush
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Steven Bellovin
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Arturo Servin
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Martin Rex
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Martin Rex
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Noel Chiappa
- RE: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Yoav Nir
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Noel Chiappa
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Yoav Nir
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Noel Chiappa
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Yoav Nir
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Doug Barton
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Mark Andrews
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Martin Rex
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Doug Barton
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Doug Barton
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Martin Rex
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Daniel Karrenberg
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting David Conrad
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Arturo Servin
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Doug Barton
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Randy Bush
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Randy Bush
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Randy Bush
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting Michael Richardson