On 5/29/12 4:05 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On May 29, 2012, at 2:12 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that the RIPE NCC has said that it can't guarantee
>> route-ability, not that it has nothing to do with routing.
>> Because, frankly, that would be insane considering the whole point
>> of maintaining these databases of who can use which numbers is to
>> allow people to connect computers together on the Internet!
> I thought the whole point of maintaining the databases was to ensure
> uniqueness and provide contact information in the event of
> network-related issues. That is a necessary but not sufficient
> requirement for connecting computers together or the Internet. The
> point of the statement "RIRs have nothing to do with routing" is to
> emphasize that the other requirements for connecting computers to the
> Internet are outside of the RIRs' control.
The true point is that routing policy was successfully kept out of IETF,
because it has no place there (IETF is protocol re-inventing task force).
...and routing policy was successfully kept out of RIPE (and other RIRs
communities), because apparently it does not belong there.
Do we need another entity, maybe called "routing police"? I'm taking
this to extremes with such a naming suggestion, just to make us think
about if we need it and if yes, what would be the purpose.