[136102] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Feb 1 06:56:36 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13778@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 03:48:47 -0800
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, carlos@lacnic.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 31, 2011, at 11:41 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> There are negligible benefits as far as I can tell from the vantage
>> points of end systems to creating new private scope ipv4 regions at
>> this
>> late date.
>>
>
> Here, yes. In other places, maybe there are other factors. I am not
> saying I favor such a thing, just going through the exercise of thinking
> through how to deal with one when/if it appears and recognizing that
> such a thing could happen.
>
> Imagine The Repressive Republic of Slobovia wants to absolutely control
> who talks to whom over that country's internet infrastructure (or, more
> accurately, who doesn't talk to whom). That is a fairly easy way of
> doing it. They absolutely control the entire addressing spectrum and if
> desired, nothing leaks. Now that isn't to say people don't find ways
> out, as they always will.
>
>
>
>
That's a really good reason NOT to provide this ability.
There's no advantage to the global internet for facilitating such a thing.
Owen
