At 02:52 PM 9/9/2004, Milton Mueller wrote: >And you can't get "a single IP address" from any RIR. Perhaps you >can from an ISP (I have never tried). The critical constraint here, >which few people seem to understand, is the need for route >aggregation. In other words, ISPs must be given their addresses >in contiguous number blocks so that they can reduce the number of >routes identified in their routing tables by lumping those contiguous >addresses together into one route. That is why you can't have >IP address portability under the current system. As with all things, technology and policy go hand in hand. The current policies evolved from a combination of circumstances: limitations of technology, the need to protect legacy systems, and the concerns of the people formulating the policy. There is, and continues to be, implications for the real world that result from the purely technical issues of routing. There is, and continues to be, opportunity for the considerations of the real world to impact how technical decisions are made. It is simply not the case that these concerns can be casually dismissed as the natural order of things. The issue of noncommercial access to address space, and the impact of address allocations on competition, are very significant issues that deserve examination. At this point, the only thing we can recommend is serious examination and documentation. I can only report my own anecdotal data that a number of Community Wireless Networks (CWNs) have said they can't afford IP address space and therefore are relying heavily on NATs -- to the detriment of their networks. I believe the CWNs want to work with the RIRs and the open policy process, but many of them don't understand how. These are often young volunteers working to bring connectivity to poor and disenfranchised communities. Unfortunately, the RIRs continue in the fine tradition of believing that it is enough to have an open process and that the true seeker, like heroes in on a quest of old, must prove their worthiness by finding the relevant fora and figuring out on their own how to participate (with the help of an FAQ file or two). The WSIS and the WGIG are broader processes. They are convened along a more traditional public interest model that recognizes that many of the people most effected do not have the resources to figure this stuff out on their own and lack the capacity to come to the table and participate. I believe that this constituency, as the voice of noncommercial organizations within DNS policy, has a responsibility to raise these issues as worthy of further study. Recommendations are frankly too premature at this stage. While I understand that there is interest in LANIC in addressing these concerns, we have little data beyond the anecdotal data that I have collected in a relatively short time. But because WSIS and WGIG represent unique and appropriate fora in which to raise the visibility of these issues, I believe this constituency should do so. Harold