North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
At 11:38 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Tim 'The Heretic' Bass wrote: > >On the other hand, address space allocated by a registry (US NIC, >European RIPE, etc.) and announced by an ISP do not 'punch holes' >in classless blocks and were assigned to the user. Furthermore, >there will *never* be a 100 percent efficient hierarchical routing >infrastructure; and the atmosphere to create it is destructive >and counterproductive. > I agree that address allocations that originated from the various registries pose a different problem, for which there is no clear-cut solution. I imagine that the various ISPs will decide how to handle it themselves, as some already do. Again, we're [collectively] not trying to dictate address allocation or routing policy. What we *are* trying to do is document a Best Current Practices procedural issue, which can be used as reference. If some organizations wish to use it as a basis for policy, that's fine too. I'm not naive enough to believe that this draft, as a BCP, will be viewed as the end-all-be-all policy doctrine, and that if you as an ISP or end-system network do not adhere to the letter of the document you will be flogged with a wet noodle. Bah. This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no longer a luxury that can be expected. Yes, it may be unpopular. Does it actually represent 'Best Current Practice'? I believe it does. Should it instead be moved ahead as 'Informational'? I don't believe so, as Curtis and others do, since it would then give the appearance of levity. - paul