Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

["John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog () adns net>]

No William, we are talking about multiple roots, NOT
separate namespaces. There is one namespace. There cannot be 
collisions. Inclusive roots do not create collisions - only ICANN
has done that so far.

There are people who have a great disagreement about how ICANN
is going about its business. There is a large piece of the world that doesn't
want ICANN to be the authority. 

No public RSN that cares about its credibility will create collisions. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william () elan net>
To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog () adns net>
Cc: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse


> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>
> > Repeat after me - COLLISIONS ARE BAD! We all agree with that.
>
> But you can't avoid collisions with multiple namespaces. This is
> exactly why Internet needs IANA - to avoid collisions in TLD names, 
> used ip addresses, protocol parameters, etc.
>
> What you're doing with separate namespace is as if you took some part
> of the currently unused IP space and setup your own BGP peering network
> for those using that space with your own registry, but also accepted 
> routes from Intenet peers on the same router mixing it all up.
>
> -- 
> William Leibzon
> Elan Networks
> william () elan net