[address-policy-wg] New Draft Document: De-boganising New Address Blocks

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-02-25, at 15.21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> On 25.02 08:55, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that what Daniel is proposing has anything to do with
>> ensuring routability.
>
> Exactly! I do not usually propose things that are impossible to 
> achieve.
> This is about pro-active notification. Routing policy is squarely in 
> the
> hands of the network operators.

 From having read the comments on the RIPE mailinglists and Nanog, I 
think that most people seems to have read this in a very different way 
that I think Daniel meant this to come across. I talked about this with 
Daniel when it was first originally brought up, and I got to review the 
document before it came out. Unfortunately I didn't have time, but even 
then I am not sure I would could have helped make the idea more clear.

What I think we need (and what I think Daniel is proposing) is the same 
as the volunteers doing this today. The advantages with the scheme 
proposed by Daniel is that a) RIPE do have a pretty large number of 
probes. b) They don't (necessarily) have the same issue of getting a 
large enough block out of the new IANA allocation to make the test 
useful.

It's no more, no less. I really have a hard time with seeing what is 
controversial with the basic proposal. If is is, then we are down to 
having to change the wording in the document.

I can see that there is plenty of room for discussion around what to do 
with the data and how to publish it though. And _that_ is a discussion 
I think is worth having.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQD0FP6arNKXTPFCVEQIy8wCffnVHpJ4phY0JyTfINr3qz3cb5OAAoL4P
pXj8kPOxkjfY7ePO4SQTXxti
=xxir
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----