-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "Nathaniel" == Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Nathaniel> Christian -- Your mesage seems to presume rather
Nathaniel> optimistically that there can be a workable technical
Nathaniel> alternative to central registries. If not -- and I'm
Nathaniel> skeptical -- your "stop digging" advice might translate
Nathaniel> into "stop improving the net."
I think that there are many places where we can do without a central
registries. Alas, the places that are the easiest are also the places
where it matters the least.
This doesn't mean stop improving. It means do so with some thought.
And the places where it matters the most - allocation of prefixes for
IPv4 and IPv6, are already done deals.
This is why I was and I still am interested in geographically based
allocation of addresses. Something that does not require any registry,
such as Tony Hain's proposals, or various mutations of it.
Even if they do not result in efficiencies in the routing table, I
think they would go a long way to making people happy. It won't make
China happy --- the last thing they want is every rice farmer to have
his own /48 that he can number each of the rice grains he produces with.
China wants their own central registry, IMHO. Geo-allocation would
make any arguments about central registries more clear -- it would tell
us which people are concerned about being on the wrong end of the
scarcity stick, vs which ones want their own sticks.
Nathaniel> research and experiments to devise an alternative --
Nathaniel> central registries will remain essential, and no amount
Nathaniel> of wishful thinking will eliminate the need for a
Nathaniel> *political* solution to the management question.
This is true.
Nathaniel> The IETF is in the business of technical solutions, but
Nathaniel> that doesn't mean that there *is* a technical solution to
Nathaniel> every problem. Where there isn't (or might not be) it is
Nathaniel> our duty to make the public and politicians aware of the
It is a question of constraints. Right now, central repositories have
not bothered the people who have been involved -- equipment makers and
ISPs. It might bother other people, but they haven't been invited to the
requirements discussion.
Nathaniel> In short, I think it would be a mistake to declare a
Nathaniel> "moratorium on the creation of IANA registries" without
Nathaniel> at least a plausible theory about what kind of
Nathaniel> alternatives might be possible. -- Nathaniel
I think that Christian actually did propose some things:
>> should also think hard about technical alternatives to central
>> registries. In some case, that may mean a slightly larger field
>> in a protocol format, so a large random number can be used
>> instead of a short registered number. In other cases, like name
>> resolution, that may require a technical break-through. But we
>> should definitely think about it!
I think that reducing the number of IANA registries should be a goal
simply because it takes IANA a lot of work to manage them.
- --
] "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBQP1kU4qHRg3pndX9AQGeyAP9E9GPVOQ9m9BrdazY+dhai43nUETjGHBq
90+kZMr9YnsYC56YBlv9CON681JpHqU6NtszjsEhA0bZgBcNtG/uhl9wqOuQUll7
K7bCwJhda2ccuCzYH8St2OvLmwpv1FBGDeeN4cF2ryMdIISJICetsTi62vaVk1Uk
4JljjoLoeOg=
=nd0Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf