On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Kradorex Xeron wrote:
On Monday 23 April 2007 14:40, J. Oquendo wrote:
Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
If we had "clean" registries and signed/verifiable advertisements
this
would not be an issue. Most of you know that DHS was pushing the
Secure
Protocols for the Routing Infrastructure initiative
(http://www.cyber.st.dhs.gov/spri.html). Due to budget cuts this
program
is on the shelf for now. However, we are still interested in
making it
happen.
I think that the discussion about 7.0.0.0/24 several days ago
could also
have been avoided if we had already implemented some of the SPRI
ideas.
Marc
Out of utter curiousness (not arrogance)... Why in the world
should the
DHS be given control to the routing infrastructure when they can't
even
secure their own networks.
That is rediculous... The DHS should have no juristictional power
over an
international and collective entity (The Internet), Why? Because
the USA does
not own the internet, no country does. it's just as I posted in the
former:
an international and collective entity.
I do not want any particular gov't (US or otherwise) to be "in
charge" of the Internet any more than the next person. And good
thing too, because it simply cannot happen, political pipe-dreams not
withstanding.
But what has that got to do with the DHS promoting an idea to sign IP
space allocations and/or annoucements? The idea in-and-of-itself
doesn't sound wholly unreasonable. (I am not advocating this, just
saying the idea shouldn't be rejected without consideration simply
because the DHS said it.)
Why not take the idea and see if it is useful, then implement it
properly if there is any use? All this vitriol over the US gov't
trying to take over the Internet is silly - sillier than the USG
thinking it can actually do so. They're politicians, they're
ignorant of reality and therefore can be excused for not
understanding how stupid they sound. All of you should know better.
--
TTFN,
patrick
