[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Dec 28 00:55:28 UTC 2013


On 28/12/2013 08:53, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> It is also a policy decision involved in deciding that typology of the
> network would not attempt too align closer to geographic boundaries, at
> least in some instances.  It currently doesn't, and i would prefer it
> didn't, but it could.   Yes there would be implications on the routing
> and on the (re)assignment of ASes, but there could be better regional
> and national alignment over time if that was something we made it a
> policy to support.

Please don't say "we". I'm quite sure that this will come to
pass in some jurisdictions, or in fact already has come to pass
(especially for those of us living on nation-state islands!),
but it's got nothing to do with underlying technology, and very
little to do with address assignment guidelines.


> avri
> On 27-Dec-13 14:15, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> All of which ignores the fact that IP addresses are allocated,
>>> routed, and used topologically, not geographically. Which
>>> means that all discussion of them in terms of physical
>>> geography and national boundaries is completely pointless.
>>> From the standpoint of pure technical efficiency, perhaps so. But
>>> then you need to explain to me why we have a growing number of NIRs
>>> in Asia and Africa (including Japan) and I why I spent several months
>>> this year trying to prevent the US DEA and DoJ from imposing
>>> jurisdictional boundaries on ARIN allocations on the basis of a "know
>>> your customer" rationale. To me the explanation seems obvious; if a
>>> political authority can align allocation and assignment authority
>>> with their own jurisdiction then they have more power over Internet
>>> uses and users.
>> --MM
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list