shim6 @ NANOG

Wed Mar 8 06:32:42 UTC 2006

--On March 7, 2006 4:29:28 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum 
<iljitsch at muada.com> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060307/4b1c7a66/attachment.sig>