> Well, some folks at ISI have already been involved in a project similar
> to this, contacting folks who have been allocated bits-n-pieces of *the*
> TWD, 192/8. Suzanne Woolf gave a presentation at LA/IETF on the progress
> of 192/8 address reclamation, complete with precentages of 192/8 users
> who were willing to give up the allocation, users who were unwilling to
> give up the allocation, and so forth.>
This work hasn't moved forward much in the last month, partly because
I've been busy (I'm sometimes rumored to have responsibility for an
actual network....) and largely, as Paul says, for lack of a home:
consensus at the PIER meeting seemed to be that this isn't a PIER
thing (off charter). However, maybe NANOG is a natural home for it;
there was some interest when we talked about it at the San Diego
meeting, although it's significantly outside day-to-day issues for
most engineers, who seem to actually spend most of their time keeping
networks running.
As most folks here already know, the basic problem with cleaning up
the TWD, and by extension any chunk of IP space, is in two parts:
1. Finding the people responsible
The InterNIC database, for well-known reasons mostly about
history and lack of incentives, is not a good source for this
information in 192/8. Some measure of cleanup there is a good
side-effect of pursuing this work but can't be relied on to drive it.
In addition, we did some preliminary analysis on routing table entries
for /24s in 192/8, which we presented in the IEPG meeting on March 2,
available as http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/whose_routes. But the
indications so far are that the required contact information is
scattered and incomplete.
It seems likely that such information will be easier to find
for more recent allocations, however.
2. "Social engineering" their behavior
The survey data was pretty definitive on one point: there are
many folks out there with legacy address allocations who are
completely unaware of allocation issues that have developed over the
last couple of years, from CIDR onwards. I choose to take this as
cause for hope-- it means some number of them will Do the Right Thing
if a) it's explained to them and b) it's not too hard for them. PIER
and other efforts are taking care of (b); I'm willing to pursue (a),
but it seems like it will also require efforts of providers and
registries, and other things traditionally outside the realm of both--
like, perish the thought, reaching people through the trade press.
Regarding item 1, we're proceeding with the problem of cleaning up the
contact information we do have. Regarding Item 2, I suspect some,
perhaps many, providers would be willing and able to help with an
educational effort in this area targeted towards their customers; such
an effort needs materials and followup, but seems do-able.
Suzanne
who still thinks (hopes?) social
engineering doesn't require blunt instruments
> to this, contacting folks who have been allocated bits-n-pieces of *the*
> TWD, 192/8. Suzanne Woolf gave a presentation at LA/IETF on the progress
> of 192/8 address reclamation, complete with precentages of 192/8 users
> who were willing to give up the allocation, users who were unwilling to
> give up the allocation, and so forth.>
This work hasn't moved forward much in the last month, partly because
I've been busy (I'm sometimes rumored to have responsibility for an
actual network....) and largely, as Paul says, for lack of a home:
consensus at the PIER meeting seemed to be that this isn't a PIER
thing (off charter). However, maybe NANOG is a natural home for it;
there was some interest when we talked about it at the San Diego
meeting, although it's significantly outside day-to-day issues for
most engineers, who seem to actually spend most of their time keeping
networks running.
As most folks here already know, the basic problem with cleaning up
the TWD, and by extension any chunk of IP space, is in two parts:
1. Finding the people responsible
The InterNIC database, for well-known reasons mostly about
history and lack of incentives, is not a good source for this
information in 192/8. Some measure of cleanup there is a good
side-effect of pursuing this work but can't be relied on to drive it.
In addition, we did some preliminary analysis on routing table entries
for /24s in 192/8, which we presented in the IEPG meeting on March 2,
available as http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/whose_routes. But the
indications so far are that the required contact information is
scattered and incomplete.
It seems likely that such information will be easier to find
for more recent allocations, however.
2. "Social engineering" their behavior
The survey data was pretty definitive on one point: there are
many folks out there with legacy address allocations who are
completely unaware of allocation issues that have developed over the
last couple of years, from CIDR onwards. I choose to take this as
cause for hope-- it means some number of them will Do the Right Thing
if a) it's explained to them and b) it's not too hard for them. PIER
and other efforts are taking care of (b); I'm willing to pursue (a),
but it seems like it will also require efforts of providers and
registries, and other things traditionally outside the realm of both--
like, perish the thought, reaching people through the trade press.
Regarding item 1, we're proceeding with the problem of cleaning up the
contact information we do have. Regarding Item 2, I suspect some,
perhaps many, providers would be willing and able to help with an
educational effort in this area targeted towards their customers; such
an effort needs materials and followup, but seems do-able.
Suzanne
who still thinks (hopes?) social
engineering doesn't require blunt instruments