[136817] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sat Feb 5 12:24:24 2011
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for
abuse reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110205162221.GE20900@vacation.karoshi.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:24:01 -0500
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
> don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
> no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to
> operational reality.
>
> and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single
> consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's
> just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be
> a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by
> a particular type of network operator.
To the extent that the operator community does not participate
in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts
not to participate in the open policy development process in the
Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make
sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality.
Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for
the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly
consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs
into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes.
(my humble opinion alone)
/John
