RE: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I suggest if a subject has consenus even appearance of that and even if
it was rehashed then just ask the list.  I felt the same as Noel but at
the IETF sat down and talked to a few of you and you have convinced me
to listen.  One thing we need to identify and note.  If anyone objects
to all ideas and builds not draft or solution or concrete roll up your
sleeves proposal then that one is suspect for success here.

My view is no decision is the worst decision.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:13 AM
> To: J. Noel Chiappa
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
> 
> 
> On donderdag, apr 3, 2003, at 14:37 Europe/Amsterdam, J. Noel Chiappa 
> wrote:
> 
> > Look, everyone, this is all really stupid.
> 
> > Geographic addressing has been discussed extensively about 
> 17 times in
> > the
> > IETF, and every time it has been rejected. Discussing it 
> one more time 
> > is not
> > going to change this. There is *never* going to be a rough 
> consensus 
> > *in
> > favour of* geographic addressing. There will *always* be a lot of 
> > people
> > against it - enough to stop it in the proposal stage.
> 
> If we sail too far to the west we fall off the earth and bumblebees 
> can't fly.
> 
> Since explaining it all again is unlikely to make a difference, I'll 
> just observe that none of the objections I've heard to date include a 
> part where they show "if you implement this, under reasonable 
> real-world conditions W and X, router Y will need a routing 
> table of Z 
> routes, which is too large".
> 
> 
>