shim6 @ NANOG
paul at clubi.ie
Wed Mar 8 02:11:10 UTC 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
> 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 paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
The truth about a man lies first and foremost in what he hides.
-- Andre Malraux
More information about the NANOG