North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: shim6 @ NANOG

  • From: Paul Jakma
  • Date: Tue Mar 07 21:12:50 2006

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Tony Hain wrote:

While I agree that any aggregation would happen locally, the overall allocation policy for a consistent geo approach needs to be done globally.
Ideally, yes. Failling that, it's still possible for it to be done unilaterally at a regional level, there would still be benefits. I.e. "globally agreed policy" need not be a blocking dependency.

You are mixing issues here.
Quite possibly ;).

A policy for assigning PI space is what ARIN can deal with. A deployment agreement about aggregating a collection of PI assignments is what operators can deal with.
Sure. However, imagine if $RIR can not agree on such a policy, it then could still be done within $REGION (in the $RIRs service area), presuming $RIR can at least agree to delegate the required address space (even if it can not agree on a policy).

I agree though it would be better if $RIR would drive policy formulation, and even if better if the RIRs could jointly agree on such polic{y,ies}.

What needs to happen is to define a global mechanism for PI assignments such that it is possible to do aggregations when it becomes necessary. Any of the geo approaches allows aggregation of a high-density pocket without requiring aggregation of all pockets globally. In particular the approach I have been pursuing allows the definition of any aggregate to evolve and track population shifts over time.
Do you have any pointers to online material? Sounds very interesting.

Paul Jakma	[email protected]	[email protected]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
The truth about a man lies first and foremost in what he hides.
		-- Andre Malraux