[123197] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Mar 2 20:31:19 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B8D9365.7070404@consolejunkie.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:30:16 +0800
To: Leen Besselink <leen@consolejunkie.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 3, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>
>>> Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer
>>> to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not
>>> necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.
>>>
>>>
>> 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 ?
>
Um, you say that like it's a good thing.
> Possible less out of date because of it.
>
True.
> We've seen complaints about those many times on this list.
>
Yes, geolocation by IP is a fundamentally broken idea and process.
That's, frankly, a good thing in my opinion.
However, ignoring all of that for a moment, what makes you assume
that CIRs would only delegate prefixes within their own nation under
this scheme? I suspect several countries will likely be happy to sell
or rent address space to the highest bidder.
Owen
