Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:26:46 +1000
- Cc: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <m2zlgl1c00.wl%randy at psg dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49954E5C.90500@mesh.ad.jp> <m2skmiv82a.wl%randy@psg.com> <49995358.60508@nic.ad.jp> <49995D7F.9090505@nic.ad.jp> <49995ECE.8000906@nic.ad.jp> <m2d4di4k5o.wl%randy@psg.com> <499A4293.6070900@nic.ad.jp> <11D92EF4-AF1B-458E-9265-7AB5BCAEC759@terrym.net> <m2zlgl1c00.wl%randy@psg.com>
- Sender: Terry Manderson <terry.mndrsn@gmail.com>
On 17/02/2009, at 10:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Given that APNIC (and all RIRs) maintain that they cannot guarantee route-ability of any prefix assigned then I guess a case of buyer beware is appropriate.i just don't get it. why conject when you can actually test? a lot of fud and black helicopter worries when one can empirically determine how much of the net will be able to connect to the prefix? rancy
That is what I was leading to. I see no value in prematurely suggesting a differentiation in values of like prefixes in a market when actual tests and searches can be done that negates the qualitative assessment.
Terry