[134625] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AltDB?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sat Jan 8 02:02:54 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <59051.1294464800@nsa.vix.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 21:01:52 -1000
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Paul,
On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> The definition of what comes under the "public policy mailing list"
>> umbrella has always been a bit confusing to me. Too bad something =
like
>> the APNIC SIGs and RIPE Working Groups don't really exist in the ARIN
>> region.
>=20
> do you have a specific proposal? i've noted in the past that arin =
tries
> hard to stick to its knitting, which is allocation and allocation =
policy.
Yes. This is a positive (IMHO), however it seems that occasionally, =
ARIN's knitting tangles up folks who don't necessarily involve =
themselves with ARIN's existing interaction mechanisms (at least =
directly).
> it seems to me that if some in the community wanted arin to run SIGs =
or WGs
> on things like routing policy arin could do it but that a lot of folks =
would
> say that's mission creep and that it would be arin poaching on nanog =
lands.
The issue I see is that there are non-address allocation{, policy} =
topics that can deeply affect network operations in which ARIN has a =
direct role, yet network operators (outside of the normal ARIN =
participants) have no obvious mechanism in which to comment/discuss/etc. =
Examples would include reverse DNS operations, whois database-related =
issues (operations, schema, access methods, etc.), (potentially?) RPKI, =
etc. It doesn't seem appropriate to me for these to be discussed in =
relation to addressing policy nor are the issues associated with those =
examples necessarily related to address allocation, hence I wouldn't =
think they'd be fodder for ppml.
In the other regions, the RIRs host the discussions (e.g., for reverse =
DNS-related discussions there is dns-wg in RIPE and dns-sig in APNIC, =
not sure if there are similar constructs in LACNIC or AfriNIC) and the =
RIR staff provides input but (as far as I know) do not direct results. =
Since the (non-ARIN) RIRs typically perform some action based on input =
from these hosted discussions (or explain to the community why they =
can't/won't), this works reasonably well. In the ARIN region, for =
reasons that you mention among others, I'm unclear whether there is =
sufficient trust (on both sides, ARIN or the ARIN-region network =
operations community) for ARIN to do something similar (note I'm not =
saying there isn't trust, just that I'm not sure that there is). One =
alternative (which I suggest being blissfully ignorant of either =
politics or establishment mechanisms in NANOG) would be for some sort of =
joint ARIN/NANOG "interest group" (or whatever) for areas that impact =
ARIN and network operators in which folks have interest such as routing =
policy/security, dns operations, registration data =
representation/access, etc.
So, in other words, no, I don't really have a specific proposal.
Regards,
-drc
