shim6 @ NANOG
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Wed Mar 8 01:27:22 UTC 2006
Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > Hm, I would rather do this globally but maybe this is the way to go...
> Geo-aggregation is something that stands its best chance of being
> implemented locally:
While I agree that any aggregation would happen locally, the overall
allocation policy for a consistent geo approach needs to be done globally.
> - the 'players' involved will be fewer
> - requirements for a workable policy will be easier to work out
> (and fewer conflicts between requirements)
> - there may be existing 'arbiter of last resort' (particularly at
> national levels) to resolve the inevitable conflicts.
> Ie this may be best done even /below/ the RIR level (though, RIR
> agreement would be needed).
> Still though, hard to see it happening without some acceptance by
You are mixing issues here. 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.
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.
More information about the NANOG