[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- From: richard.barnes at gmail.com (Richard Barnes)
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:46:46 +0800
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <FC5FF0B613540249959195342B6D034CC03822@worldmax-sbs01.Worldmax.local> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
>> Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
>> upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity).
>
> Maintenance of "GeoIP"-databases becomes easier and less error-prone ?
>
> Possible less out of date because of it.
>
> We've seen complaints about those many times on this list.
There are much better ways to handle geolocation than reconfiguring
the structure of the IP address space. See also:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/>
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery>
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery>
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions>
Regardless of the technical merits of those specific protocols, which
have been debated here and elsewhere, geolocation is an
application-layer concept, and shouldn't be forced down onto the
network layer.
--Richard