George Michaelson wrote: > ... > > What is special about a number allocated by > the "blessed > > agency" in the case we're discussing? > > Strong admission checks into routing are going to make Joe's > numbers less useful.
Admission checks by which authority? Remember we are talking about prefixes which are defined to not exist in the global public routing system. That makes them completely useful between private routing peers, until there is a duplication. > Rhetorical questions aside, minor flaws > don't stop people using systems which are 'modelled' as being > perfect. Whats special is that the agency is seen to operate > in a public policy/governance space, to not do what Joe does. The IETF does not have a good track record in the policy space. The numerical registry space is better, but not perfect (how many port numbers were assigned after the fact???). I believe the root of kre's concern is that we don't approach the governance space with the appropriate attitude. We need to admit up front that numbers will never be absolutely unique, and that some people will want to make up their own for completely random reasons. All we can do is define a single rooted registry with a to-be-defined conflict resolution process, and a space for those who want to do their own thing. We must not define the business aspects of the registry. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
