nanog mailing list archives
Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6
From: "Wayne E. Bouchard" <web () typo org>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:51:47 -0700
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:14:27PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for national providers and folks that care about optimal routing, but it's the only way that I can see that will allow the Internet to continue to operate over the long term. Tony
Unfortunately, the U. N. is full of people representing countries whose only concern is their own petty self-interests, not the larger good of the world community as a whole. The end result of this would be arguing and bickering and delaying in any governance decision until it's past the point where it matters and new problems have surfaced. (It's like a room full of 4 year olds all screaming "MINE!") With market interests, at least, there is a driving force to solve various problems in a timely manner. Eventually, the governance of the internet will have to be done in some sort of global forum but I don't really think that particular body is the right place. -Wayne (Yes, I realize that finding lawmakers or the like who actually ARE interested in the good of the community is like trying to find water in the desert but you get the idea...)
Current thread:
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI, (continued)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Tony Li (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Robert E . Seastrom (Nov 29)
- RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Scott Morris (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Hank Nussbacher (Nov 30)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Nov 30)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Daniel Senie (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI John Kristoff (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Nils Ketelsen (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 25)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Chris Kuethe (Nov 22)
