[123189] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Barnes)
Tue Mar 2 17:47:03 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B8D9365.7070404@consolejunkie.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:46:46 +0800
From: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Leen Besselink <leen@consolejunkie.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
>> upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity).
>
> Maintenance of "GeoIP"-databases becomes easier and less error-prone ?
>
> Possible less out of date because of it.
>
> We've seen complaints about those many times on this list.
There are much better ways to handle geolocation than reconfiguring
the structure of the IP address space. See also:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/>
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery>
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery>
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions>
Regardless of the technical merits of those specific protocols, which
have been debated here and elsewhere, geolocation is an
application-layer concept, and shouldn't be forced down onto the
network layer.
--Richard
