North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Wed Mar 08 01:35:01 2006



--On March 7, 2006 4:29:28 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> wrote:

On 6-mrt-2006, at 22:08, Owen DeLong wrote:

What I hear is "any type of geography can't work because network
topology != geography". That's like saying cars can't work
because  they
can't drive over water which covers 70% of the earth's surface.

No, it's more like saying "Cars which can't operate off of freeways
won't work" because there are a lot of places freeways don't go.
Hmmm... Come to think of it, I haven't seen anyone selling a car
which won't operate off of a freeway.
If we slightly open this up to "vehicles on wheels" and "long  distance
infrastructure created specially for said vehicles" trains  would
qualify...

True, and, a good case in point.  A relatively small percentage of the
US population finds trains routinely useful.  An even smaller percentage
(infinitessimal, actually) finds them useful enough to not have a car.

I've got no opposition to issuing addresses based on some geotop.
design,
simply because on the off chance it does provide useful
aggregation, why
not.
Exactly, that's all I ask.

OTOH, I haven't seen anyone propose geotop allocation as a policy
in the ARIN region (hint to those pushing for it).
Hm, I would rather do this globally but maybe this is the way to go...
The only way to achieve global policy is to achieve a similar policy in
each RIR and then get them to agree on a globally consistent one together.
This is by design because it is a process which allows each region to
have full input into the process without the stakeholders in any region
being steamrolled by the needs of another region.

Owen

Attachment: pgp00019.pgp
Description: PGP signature