[address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01...
- Previous message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
- Next message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jul 14 02:32:59 CEST 2008
Peter and all Peter Galbavy wrote: > Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Yes and a not so good policy. > > > An excellent policy, actually. Most "excellent" policies are formulates > before greed and commercial interests get a hold; See US Declaration of > Independence, early RIPE policies and most RFCs before the IETF happened. Commercial interests already have a hold, and were sense day one eventually going to get a hold. Ergo why this policy was not well thought out. Sorry to disagree here, but I am compeled to do so on practical grounds. > > > > > > Peters discription is however not complete, as we now know, and > > as many have contended sence day 1, was never intended as he > > discribes it. > > > > > Er, actually in this context it is and was and hopefully will be. I > think I was hanging around in the background when many of these were > formulated; not contributing, but drinking the coffee at least. As > Michael says the "public" Internet is not completely what the original > RFC authors had in mind. Mixing metaphors here it seems. > > > > > Exactly right and therefore presupposes that private PI or PA space > > wheather public or not are in any routing scheme may or may not reflect > > the public internet routing policy which is just a fact of the real world. > > > Not that simple and probably not true. You are conflating routing > between networks (internetworking) and this supposed public > infrastructure where a large proportion of the address space is visible > in some form. They are not the same and how will you decide who's policy > viewpoint is the right one ? Let me guess, a network with a routing > policy and a viewpoint you agree with ? Routing and internetworking are intertwined and have to some degree for a very long time now. More in depth is coming wheather or not it is, or is not wise. It's also not a metter if I agree or not, it is a matter of if the majority or providers or various sorts do. > > > Peter Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
- Previous message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
- Next message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]