RE: shim6 @ NANOG

[Paul Jakma <paul () clubi ie>]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Tony Hain wrote:

> While I agree that any aggregation would happen locally, the 
> overall allocation policy for a consistent geo approach needs to be 
> done globally.

Ideally, yes. Failling that, it's still possible for it to be done 
unilaterally at a regional level, there would still be benefits. I.e. 
"globally agreed policy" need not be a blocking dependency.

> You are mixing issues here.

Quite possibly ;).

> A policy for assigning PI space is what ARIN can deal with. A 
> deployment agreement about aggregating a collection of PI 
> assignments is what operators can deal with.

Sure. However, imagine if $RIR can not agree on such a policy, it 
then could still be done within $REGION (in the $RIRs service area), 
presuming $RIR can at least agree to delegate the required address 
space (even if it can not agree on a policy).

I agree though it would be better if $RIR would drive policy 
formulation, and even if better if the RIRs could jointly agree on 
such polic{y,ies}.

> What needs to happen is to define a global mechanism for PI 
> assignments such that it is possible to do aggregations when it 
> becomes necessary. Any of the geo approaches allows aggregation of 
> a high-density pocket without requiring aggregation of all pockets 
> globally. In particular the approach I have been pursuing allows 
> the definition of any aggregate to evolve and track population 
> shifts over time.

Do you have any pointers to online material? Sounds very interesting.

regards,
--
Paul Jakma      paul () clubi ie        paul () jakma org       Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
The truth about a man lies first and foremost in what he hides.
                -- Andre Malraux