-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-02-25, at 15.21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 25.02 08:55, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I don't think that what Daniel is proposing has anything to do with ensuring routability.
Exactly! I do not usually propose things that are impossible to achieve. This is about pro-active notification. Routing policy is squarely in the hands of the network operators.
From having read the comments on the RIPE mailinglists and Nanog, I think that most people seems to have read this in a very different way that I think Daniel meant this to come across. I talked about this with Daniel when it was first originally brought up, and I got to review the document before it came out. Unfortunately I didn't have time, but even then I am not sure I would could have helped make the idea more clear. What I think we need (and what I think Daniel is proposing) is the same as the volunteers doing this today. The advantages with the scheme proposed by Daniel is that a) RIPE do have a pretty large number of probes. b) They don't (necessarily) have the same issue of getting a large enough block out of the new IANA allocation to make the test useful. It's no more, no less. I really have a hard time with seeing what is controversial with the basic proposal. If is is, then we are down to having to change the wording in the document. I can see that there is plenty of room for discussion around what to do with the data and how to publish it though. And _that_ is a discussion I think is worth having. Best regards, - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQD0FP6arNKXTPFCVEQIy8wCffnVHpJ4phY0JyTfINr3qz3cb5OAAoL4P pXj8kPOxkjfY7ePO4SQTXxti =xxir -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----