Robert Hunt wrote:
Hello NZNOG,
I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question.
Robert Hunt Plain Communications (still using 202.36.174.0 for all our most important servers and still expecting those numbers to be portable if we change NSP)
Robert, The key to the utility of address space isn't purely a matter of ownership/proprietary claim. You make a claim to 'own' 202.36.174.0 and you expect it to be portable if you change service provider. If we get to the point on the core of the Internet where major providers insist on carrying routes with no more than /18 or /19 prefixes (and some such as Sprint have raised the prospect) then you may 'own' this address space but it will not be usable. I'd suggest that unless we can come up with a technical solution which is workable then we have no prospect of persuading the 'decision makers' whoever they may be of anything. My experience tells me that given that very people understand how most of this works that if a number of experienced technical people agree on a strategy their organisations will get in behind that. Without that we wouldn't have an Internet and I still think it's the way to move this forward. I hope you can attend the meeting. andy -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog