North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

  • From: John Palmer (NANOG Acct)
  • Date: Sat Jul 09 15:54:59 2005

No William, we are talking about multiple roots, NOT
separate namespaces. There is one namespace. There cannot be 
collisions. Inclusive roots do not create collisions - only ICANN
has done that so far.

There are people who have a great disagreement about how ICANN
is going about its business. There is a large piece of the world that doesn't
want ICANN to be the authority. 

No public RSN that cares about its credibility will create collisions. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]>
To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse


> 
> 
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
> 
> > Repeat after me - COLLISIONS ARE BAD! We all agree with that.
> 
> But you can't avoid collisions with multiple namespaces. This is
> exactly why Internet needs IANA - to avoid collisions in TLD names, 
> used ip addresses, protocol parameters, etc.
> 
> What you're doing with separate namespace is as if you took some part
> of the currently unused IP space and setup your own BGP peering network
> for those using that space with your own registry, but also accepted 
> routes from Intenet peers on the same router mixing it all up.
> 
> -- 
> William Leibzon
> Elan Networks
> [email protected]
> 
>