[ppml] Provider Independence???

[Owen DeLong]

--On Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:09 PM +0000 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 
wrote:

>> >
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov02.doc
>> > (yes, its a word file)).
>>
>> in the name of the digital divide.  brought to you by the folk
>> who brought you the analog divide and help maintain it today.
>
> Thank you for your succint, uninformed knee-jerk opinion.
> Those who have read the ITU document will know that it is
> not proposing any form of geographic addressing. It is suggesting
> that some IPv6 addresses should be allocated according to
> national political boundaries.
>
I hate to break it to you, Michael, but, generally, this is effectively
a form of geographic addressing.  For the most part, national political
boundaries are, despite rumors to the contrary, geographic in nature.

I didn't see anything in the ITU document that proposed allocating a chunk
of addresses to the Cherokee nation, for example, so, apparently, nations
without geographic boundaries do not count.  While Randy's curmudgeonly
response may have been a bit knee-jerk, I don't think it was all that
uninformed.  I think that the tendency to dismiss the issues Randy is
attempting to point out (most of which are out of scope for this list)
because of the way Randy presents them (I'm not defending his methods
here) is problematic.

> On the other hand, I am suggesting that the geographic
> addresses allowed for in the IPv6 RFCs should be allocated
> in a way that ignores political boundaries but does take
> into account the physical topology of network connections.
>
I am very confused by this statement.  A moment ago, I was reading email 
from
you that suggested that the addressing be based on geographic regions which
have no relationship to network topology based on some claim that boiled
down to "if we build it, they will come".  Now, you're saying you want to
allocate addresses topologically regardless of geography.  It appears to me
that you are disagreeing with yourself.

> Disagree with this if you will, but please do not mix
> it up with unrelated activities.
>
I don't see how I can do a better job of disagreeing with it than you
already have.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20041209/18a33ab3/attachment.sig>