Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof co
> think about just reseserving a /16 or whatever for a country and doing sparse
> allocation from the block in the normal way.
Shud explore.
Regards
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:20, Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com> wrote:
>> Dear Skeeve,
>> When I referred to respecting views, it was precisely over this
>> thought that only skilled and experienced engineers can have
>> opinions. :-)
>
> when i suggested we needed a base in routing on which to discuss the
> routing-related justifications presented for prop-100, i in no way meant
> to express the jingoism into which skeeve embarrassingly descended.
>
> my proposal was merely meant to be sure we were all standing on the same
> technical base when discussing technical issues. and probably we can
> all use review of the relevant basics.
>
> fwiw, my opinion on the proposal in general is that it is a mistake to
> try and base it on technical issues. aside from forcing you to deal
> with ill-mannered engineers such as i, it drags you below layer nine
> into areas where the arguments being made are very difficult to support
> technically.
>
> if pop-100 is all at layers nine and ten (politics and religion), you
> have gone above my pay grade and even i have to admit my opinions are
> irrelevant. i think if folk would stay above layer eight, then there
> probably are very reasonable approaches to your very real social and
> political issues.
>
> for example, ipv6 space is thought to be infinite (i do not necessarily
> agree. we used to think 32 bits was effectively infinite). think about
> just reseserving a /16 or whatever for a country and doing sparse
> allocation from the block in the normal way.
>
> randy