[156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Wed Aug 2 04:35:54 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 00:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: kwe@6sigmanets.com, haas@xmission.com, nanog@merit.edu,
haas@xmission.xmission.com
In-Reply-To: <9508020358.AA06789@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Aug 1, 95 10:58:37 pm
> > This is true for non-geographic markets, but what happens when the Internet
> > reaches a size where geographic markets develop?
> >
> > In other words, when it makes sense to buy pizza on the Net, won't it make
> > sense to revive geographic naming, to serve geographic markets?
> >
>
> There are also organizations, such as ours, which cannot sanely
> aggregate traffic on a geographic measure, since a single gateway
> to a corporate network (which may span the globe) may be located
> in Duluth. We simply cannot sanely assign networks on a geographical
> basis. This would be farcical. CIDR'isation in this case would be
> on a corporate/organizational level.
>
> In this thread, no one has yet mentoned this particular issue.
>
> i realize that this has _no_ impact on domain naming, yet it is
> indeed an issue which has been overlooked by most providers.
>
> - paul
Check the followup on bigz.
The summary is that the container is not the thing contained.
--
--bill
