[136818] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sat Feb 5 12:58:22 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <1CC2F3D8-8417-46FF-9AD4-A6FB2453D407@istaff.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:57:26 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>=20
>> as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators=20
>> don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
>> no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to=20
>> operational reality.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> To the extent that the operator community does not participate=20
> in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts=20
> not to participate in the open policy development process in the=20
> Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make=20
> sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality. =20
In fairness, Operators are ruled by business needs. Convincing =
management that we should spend money, time, and effort to change a =
process which _may_ have some relevance to the bottom line in some very =
obtuse (and completely unrelated - by accounting standards) way is =
difficult at best.
Add to that the fact most companies are squeezing their employees for =
every possible efficiency, and even spending your own time on it becomes =
difficult.
Despite all that, I agree it is difficult for the process to take =
operators' PoV into account if no operator is giving input.
> Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for=20
> the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly=20=
> consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs=20
> into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes.
We appreciate that.
And let's hope the operators will make some attempt at being more =
involved in the process. (Guess I'll have to subscribe to PPML now, =
which I have been avoiding like the plague for years.)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
