[123190] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leen Besselink)
Tue Mar 2 17:56:28 2010
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:56:14 +0100
From: Leen Besselink <leen@consolejunkie.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <88ac5c711003021446w7ac42836rcb41a55130125f9@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 03/02/2010 11:46 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>> 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 Possible less out of date because of it.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
>
>
I never said we should do so. :-)
I just mentioned it's possible.
