[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Paul Vixie]

# > the routers aren't at the landing stations, tony!
# 
# That is a business decision, not a technical one.

when one entity has to decide something, we call it a "decision."  when a lot
of entities have to decide something, we call it "game theory" or even a
"market".  but i guess if you think that soviet-style central planning will
ever work for the internet, then you would naturally think of the placement
of routers wrt landing stations as a "decision".

# > paraphrasing padlipsky, the territory is under no obligation whatsoever to
# > conform to your map, sir!
# 
# True, though if things get too out of hand the bunch at the UN has the
# regulatory power to encourage conformance.

um, no.  actually, the UN does not have (and should not have, and will never
have) that kind of regulatory power.

# I am not suggesting we should allow things to get there, just noting that
# there is a boundary condition in that direction.

in an earlier note i tried to point in the general direction of the absurdity
of "boundaries", but i was apparently too subtle.  if the IP community were
to seek regionalized aggregatability in its block allocations, then "geo" is
not what the end users would want.  indeed, you'd see outer blocks based on
language, culture, religion, and politics before you'd see much geo at all.
for example, much of the christian world would want to band their addresses
together, and much of the muslim world.  probably so they could firewall each
other off more efficiently.  an outer block for the catalan language, and one
for farsi, and so on.  if the idea of aggregatability as a block allocation
strategy weren't just silly madness, it would grow up to be scary madness.

# From my perspective A6/DNAME was not as technically flawed as the fragile
# DNS infrastructure that it relied on. The biggest problem with A6 is that it
# seriously stresses the DNS infrastructure as compared with AAAA, and the
# only reference experience looked more like AAAA than A6.

you've given me some insight.  A6/DNAME and the dynamic edge it would have
enabled was too organic for you and for a lot of others.  i get it now.  i
disagree completely, now as then, since i'm in a pretty good position to know
how much stress the DNS infrastructure can take, and i'll say again, A6/DNAME
would have been the smaller worry compared to massive PI allocations or SHIM6.

# In any case it is not dead so much as parked waiting for someone to show
# that it won't break everything.

no, actually, it's dead.  there's an installed base that begins its flows
with AAAA lookups which we've proved cannot be synthesized based on A6 data.
there was only one opportunity to fix this, and the "DNS Directorate" ruled
it out.  (invalidating the installed base isn't on the table.)

# > but we digress.
# 
# Your arguments are fundamentally opposed to each other here. This comment
# says regulation is appropriate at a city scale while the one above about
# intercontinental transit should not be regulated.  Why shouldn't there be a
# global requirement for exchange based peering on whatever scale makes sense?

regulation of this kind makes sense to a group of citizens if they can get
away with it.  the largest civic unit that can get away with stuff like this
is a city.

# Should there be a single exchange for each of San Francisco, San Jose, and
# Oakland, or one that covers the entire Bay Area, or California?

if those cities could somehow learn to work together, and "get away with it",
then it would be a fine thing.  but they never will, so it doesn't matter
what "should" be done, even if we could identify the values and valuer that
underlies the "should" in your question, which we can't.

# My argument is that the cost of running independent exchanges and transit
# should be weighed against the cost of routing impact within that area.

weighed by whom?  googling for "soviet central planning" is entertaining and
educational.  especially <http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/east/spring95/levin.html>,
whose title is "Why Soviet Central Planning Failed".  here's a quote:

      In Schumpeter's view, the power of the market system lay not in the
      level of static efficiency that it achieved (as most of the economics
      profession said it did), but in its level of dynamic efficiency. That
      is, the success of the market system was not its efficient resource
      allocation under static levels of technology and resource availability,
      but its ability to produce dynamic changes in technology and to achieve
      dynamic growth through such changes.

# > well, but, you are.  acting that way, that is.
# 
# I will try to act differently, but it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

i understand that padlipsky's "elements of networking style" is back in print,
and reading this could help you with your quest.