|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: shim6 @ NANOG
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. regards, -- Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: The truth about a man lies first and foremost in what he hides. -- Andre Malraux
|