[139773] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Tue Apr 19 16:15:47 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: <DC315BB0-9B5A-4A4B-9435-6E9316CD58C2@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:15:36 -0400
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>,
Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:56 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>>=20
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different
>> entities providing fragmented "post-allocation services" is of any
>> benefit.
>=20
> Some folks find competition in service providers beneficial.
I agree that competition can be quite useful and the result doesn't =
necessarily=20
have to be be fragmented; it's quite possible to provide transparent =
referrals=20
to make the services appear as a consistent whole. This requires =
understanding
where the competition is being introduced; is it a single registry and =
multiple
registrars, or multiple registries and synchronization, or some other =
model? Is
there an architecture for this future model, or perhaps even a starting =
set of=20
goals to work towards agreement on? David - can you share more about =
what you
believe is being proposed?
/John
