Could you please explain why you beieve it is important to consider the
RIRs? It is quite possible I am missing something.
As a participant, I believe I have said clearly that I prefer that we
spell out what our allocation / delegation / application behavioral
requiremens are, without specifying who would meet them.
My expectation is that this would result in something where there RIRs
could participate, and where non-RIRs could also participate withot
going through the RIRs.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
<rir hat off>
I think that going forward withou considering the RIR system would be a
big mistake (by either ignoring them, or doing something without asking)
I haven't read the draft carefully (I will) but I think that if the
authors' intention is to promote a dialogue, it is in good direction.
</rir hat off>
Regards,
as
On 28/02/2013 03:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
That similar. My point is specifically to stay out fo "who" except for the
root.
excellent, think we can agree on that really, and that's one direction to think.
I would really like to hear if any other have other possible direction
we can consider, either with or without existing RIR system.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
