Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: Co-chair (IETF SIDR Working Group).
Source description Public policy participant
Christopher Morrow <> Tue, 08 March 2011 02:17 UTC
public people profile
Bots and Spoofed Sources Session Chair: Chris Morrow, UUNET
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-09-26
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The same network-topology example explains why independent addressing remains relevant. It does not establish support for every term of the earlier PI proposal or provide a second independent position to compare over time.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The same network-topology example explains why independent addressing remains relevant. It does not establish support for every term of the earlier PI proposal or provide a second independent position to compare over time.
Conditions: A shared message linked to two proposals remains one intervention.
Google's datacenters around the world MIGHT NOT have 'internal' network connectivity, yahoo, eds, blah all have the same problem.
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The common routing problem is relevant to both IPv6 proposals. Because both links point to the same intervention, they cannot demonstrate either repeated agreement or a reversal between the proposals.
Conditions: Policy-link count is not an independent-observation count.
This leads us to a discussion about PI space again
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites · 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
Assessment: Consistent · The PI discussion asks whether addressing arrangements work for disconnected sites; the privacy discussion asks whether proposed responses work for operators and who would be affected. These practical concerns are compatible. They do not imply a common final vote on unrelated addressing and privacy rules.
Conditions: Compatibility of the expressed concerns is narrower than a finding of stable policy commitments over time.
not always with 'internal' connnectivity.
In the world of larger network operations this is a non-starter... (blocking all of apnic at the 'firewall')
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Morrow explicitly remains undecided on residential privacy, distinguishes businesses from individuals, and asks who would be affected. He also rejects broad network blocking as operationally impractical. Those qualifications do not amount to the strong opposition expressed by a different speaker in the quoted discussion.
2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Morrow explicitly remains undecided on residential privacy, distinguishes businesses from individuals, and asks who would be affected. He also rejects broad network blocking as operationally impractical. Those qualifications do not amount to the strong opposition expressed by a different speaker in the quoted discussion.
Conditions: The supplied text establishes an open question, not a final privacy-policy vote.
I'm, overall, undecided about this issue, residential privacy
Was there any analysis done of the folks taht would be affected by a change in residential privacy requirements?
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites · 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
Assessment: Consistent · The PI discussion asks whether addressing arrangements work for disconnected sites; the privacy discussion asks whether proposed responses work for operators and who would be affected. These practical concerns are compatible. They do not imply a common final vote on unrelated addressing and privacy rules.
Conditions: Compatibility of the expressed concerns is narrower than a finding of stable policy commitments over time.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Morrow explains why a large allocation alone does not solve reachability for sites without internal connectivity. The alternatives he lists illustrate the routing problem; they do not select a final policy or establish a change of preference.
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Morrow explains why a large allocation alone does not solve reachability for sites without internal connectivity. The alternatives he lists illustrate the routing problem; they do not select a final policy or establish a change of preference.
Conditions: Only one routing intervention is supplied, also linked to the earlier PI proposal.
So, even with a /32 they have to either:
This leads us to a discussion about PI space again
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The common routing problem is relevant to both IPv6 proposals. Because both links point to the same intervention, they cannot demonstrate either repeated agreement or a reversal between the proposals.
Conditions: Policy-link count is not an independent-observation count.
This leads us to a discussion about PI space again
not always with 'internal' connnectivity.
In the world of larger network operations this is a non-starter... (blocking all of apnic at the 'firewall')
