North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse
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] > >
|