I never meant to say that the draft or the WG (I suppose that is the
"we) were around the RIRs.
I meant that it wouldn't be a good idea to ignoring them or adding
tasks without consulting them. I see some drawbacks in using the RIRs (I
know them, I work for one) yes, but I see more in not even going to see
if they may be a good solution.
Regards,
as
On 02/03/2013 18:40, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> We have no intention of going just around the RIR system. We are now
> just looking at the EID-space case with an open mind.
>
> _who_ should exercise the service are not on the table yet. First we
> need to know what we need. It would be rather backwards to start a
> discussion with the RIR on the EID-space when we not yet know all the
> requirements for such a service/system?
>
> David mention one difference between so-called PI space and EID-space,
> PI-space are supposed to be globally routable. That's not really in
> the nature of EID-space. There are probably quite alot more we need to
> think through first.
>
>
>
> --- Roger J ---
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> After reading your email it is clear to me that the IETF should
>> consider to work with the RIRs instead or going around them.
>>
>> It will save us all time and effort.
> <snip>
>
>
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
