[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken
bzs at world.std.com
Fri Apr 18 20:46:35 UTC 2014
On April 18, 2014 at 15:51 ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
>> But, ok, none of ICANN et al's interest...if they say so.
> That depends on who the "alii" are. The technical communities have
> two ways forward here: figure out how to accommodate a growing routing
> table, or say to people, "The Internet is full." No policy response
> is going to be able to do anything to make that choice less stark, and
> I think we know that option 2 is not allowed.
I was referring to the various internet governance groups being talked
about here, and the relationship to the issues properly disucssed
There are other choices which might take political will, for example
route aggregation, i.e., forcing cooperation.
In theory you could put the entire nation of China (just an example)
behind one modest IPv6 block and no one would want for IPv6 address
space at least for the foreseeable future. So, want to get to China?
One route entry, they take care of further distribution on their
"campus" (i.e., China.)
I'm not picking on China, I just mean that this would work for the
most populous nation in the world, and every other. Or other
subdivisions, no reason to make that national. It could also be done
with multi-national corporations and even NSPs etc.
Just make a policy like the smallest routable block is a /32 (IPv6)
and you have to be able to justify it.
Anyhow, as I said previously, trying to separate out technical from
social policy is only possible in the easiest cases.
I think telling China (e.g.!) they are only getting one IPv6 network
block and have to effect any further distribution themselves would
tend to straddle the distinction, for example.
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
More information about the discuss