[27541] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Alternatives (was Re: whois broke again?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland M.J. Meyer)
Tue Feb 22 11:04:58 2000
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>
Cc: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>,
"LIST NANOG" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:02:03 -0800
Message-ID: <NDBBJKGADKGFDIKIHOBJIELECFAA.rmeyer@mhsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200002221446.GAA13507@vacation.karoshi.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
> [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 6:47 AM
> >
> > > bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
> > > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 5:11 PM
> >
> > > > While I think that Bill Manning's DNS TXT suggestion is clever, and
> > > > nicely distributed, it requires a lot of effort.
> > >
> > > actually, I think both efforts have about the same level
> > > of effort. In one case, its concentrated in a single place,
> > > in the other, its all over the place.
> >
> > The nice thing about central is that things will get done, or not done,
> > consistantly. You tend to strike a closure point at some time. In the
> > distributed "all over the place" model, things may never be
> consistent, nor
> > will they ever be complete. It is also difficult to enforce quality
> > standards.
> >
>
> Hum, is this an argument for reconsituting "Ma Bell"?
No it isn't, you mistake my intentions. I was just weighing out each end of
the spectrum.
> One of the strengths of the Internet is its distributed nature.
Tell that to DOC/NTIA/ICANN. I'm with Stef and the ORSC in this, aka; the
opposition (see: www.dnso.net).
> And the trend is in this direction with the addition of new
> IP aware products (cell phones, networked "gadgets", et.al.)
> Trying to retain a centralized structure is (IMHO) doomed to
> failure. Its better to have broadly available standards that
> can be enforced at the provider/subscriber boundary and then
> let the market "bloom" rather than have a single forcing function
> that everything must run through before proper operations can
> occur.
Finding that sweet-spot has been elusive.
> We might as well argue for the reconstitution of the InterNIC
> and the abolishment of RIPE, APNIC, ARIN. You'll get "things ...
> done, or not done consistantly." and will "strike a closure point
> at some time".
Actually, RIPE/APINIC/ARIN is too centralized for my taste. <grin>
> Striking the balance is hard but I expect that the trend is away
> from centralized services.
Not according to DOC/NTIA/ICANN <sigh>.
