nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv4 address exchange
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:15:36 -0400
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:56 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different entities providing fragmented "post-allocation services" is of any benefit.Some folks find competition in service providers beneficial.
I agree that competition can be quite useful and the result doesn't necessarily have to be be fragmented; it's quite possible to provide transparent referrals to make the services appear as a consistent whole. This requires understanding where the competition is being introduced; is it a single registry and multiple registrars, or multiple registries and synchronization, or some other model? Is there an architecture for this future model, or perhaps even a starting set of goals to work towards agreement on? David - can you share more about what you believe is being proposed? /John
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address exchange, (continued)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeff Wheeler (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange David Conrad (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange David Conrad (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Benson Schliesser (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeff Wheeler (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeffrey Lyon (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Benson Schliesser (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Jeff Wheeler (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Benson Schliesser (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 19)
- Re: IPv4 address exchange John Curran (Apr 19)