[89307] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Mar 7 10:30:11 2006
In-Reply-To: <F7CD00563091963B5168EE51@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Cc: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:29:28 +0100
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 6-mrt-2006, at 22:08, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> What I hear is "any type of geography can't work because network
>> topology != geography". That's like saying cars can't work
>> because they
>> can't drive over water which covers 70% of the earth's surface.
> No, it's more like saying "Cars which can't operate off of freeways
> won't work" because there are a lot of places freeways don't go.
> Hmmm... Come to think of it, I haven't seen anyone selling a car
> which won't operate off of a freeway.
If we slightly open this up to "vehicles on wheels" and "long
distance infrastructure created specially for said vehicles" trains
would qualify...
> I've got no opposition to issuing addresses based on some geotop.
> design,
> simply because on the off chance it does provide useful
> aggregation, why
> not.
Exactly, that's all I ask.
> OTOH, I haven't seen anyone propose geotop allocation as a policy
> in the ARIN region (hint to those pushing for it).
Hm, I would rather do this globally but maybe this is the way to go...
