Geoff Huston

Geoff Huston은(는) 인용된 공개 기록에서 인터넷 인프라와 관련된 의사결정, 소송, 거버넌스 또는 운영에 관여한 인물로 확인되며, 현재 직책과 소속은 검증 대상입니다.

확인 가능한 근거는 역할: Chief Internet Scientist (Telstra)를 다룹니다.

최신 2004

역할: Chief Internet Scientist (Telstra)

신뢰도

정보 유형: Geoff Huston의 문서로 확인된 공적 역할, 결정 또는 법적 연루는 네트워크 투자, 시장 접근, 인프라 정책, 책임 경계에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이 자료집은 인용된 기록과 현직 역할 검증을 구분해 담습니다.

역할

Role:Chief Internet Scientist (Telstra)· 2001 – 2004아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:Research Scientist (APNIC)· 2004아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:author (APNIC)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:member (Internet Architecture Board)· 1999 – 2005아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:Executive Director (Internet Architecture Board)· 2001 – 2005아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:Routing operations working group chair (IETF)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:IPv6 Multi-homing working group chair (IETF)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:Executive Council member (APNIC)· 1996 – 2004아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

출처 정보

RIR 정책 참여

3참여한 RIR

16참여한 정책

22총 정책 메시지 수

2004. 12. 8.최초 참여

2008. 6. 14.마지막 참여

prop-020Application of the HD ratio to IPv4알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The message shares technical analysis of HD-ratio implications and identifies the proposal as relevant to APNIC, but it does not state a personal position on the proposal. A single technical report cannot establish viewpoint consistency or inconsistency.
Application of the HD ratio to IPv4
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The message shares technical analysis of HD-ratio implications and identifies the proposal as relevant to APNIC, but it does not state a personal position on the proposal. A single technical report cannot establish viewpoint consistency or inconsistency.
조건: The report is evidence of analysis or information sharing, not an adoption or implementation verdict.
2006. 2. 23.
This report was posted to the RIPE address policy mailing list
prop-031Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirementpolicy알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
prop-0324-byte AS number policy proposal Adopted by all RIRs알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
prop-033End site assignment policy for IPv6알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
prop-050IPv4 address transfers알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
prop-109Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as Research Prefixes알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
prop-110Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
unnumbered-experimental-resource-allocations-2002Experimental Internet Resource Allocations알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
ARIN-2005-12005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
ARIN-2005-62005-6: IPv4 Micro-allocations for Anycast Services알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
ARIN-2005-92005-9: 4-Byte AS Number알 수 없음 · 11 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
The December explanation says existing two-byte ASN holders need not take transition action; the February revision changes the registry's handling of future allocation requests and explicitly avoids a flag day. Those propositions address different parts of the transition and do not contradict one another.
2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number
평가: 일관성 · The December explanation says existing two-byte ASN holders need not take transition action; the February revision changes the registry's handling of future allocation requests and explicitly avoids a flag day. Those propositions address different parts of the transition and do not contradict one another.
조건: These are historical claims and proposed dates, not a statement of current ASN rules or proof that implementation occurred. · Publishing an authored revision is not an additional independent community vote.
2005. 12. 13.
Folk who have 2 byte AS numbers need do _nothing_ , i.e. the transition allows for "the continued use of AS2 space" indefinitely.
2006. 2. 4.
the registry will process Global change "On 1 January" to "Commencing 1 January
2006. 2. 4.
while no flag day is required in the transition to the longer AS Number field
2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number · ARIN-prop-20: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · A single technical reply is linked to both proposal records. Its appearance under both records cannot serve as two independent positions demonstrating agreement or disagreement across proposals.
조건: The narrow consistency finding on the detailed transition explanation does not create missing substantive evidence for the cross-linked proposal.
ARIN-prop-10ARIN-prop-10: PI assignments for V6알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
ARIN-prop-20ARIN-prop-20: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The sole supplied reply rejects technical assertions and points back to references. Without those assertions in the author's own text or another independent position on this recorded proposal, it cannot establish a policy reversal or a complete consistency history.
ARIN-prop-20: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The sole supplied reply rejects technical assertions and points back to references. Without those assertions in the author's own text or another independent position on this recorded proposal, it cannot establish a policy reversal or a complete consistency history.
조건: The same reply is cross-linked to both four-byte ASN proposal records and counts as one communication.
2005. 12. 13.
Again, not so. I'll say it again: Please _read_ these references, as they are intended to describe the transition situation in as comprehensive manner as possible.
2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number · ARIN-prop-20: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · A single technical reply is linked to both proposal records. Its appearance under both records cannot serve as two independent positions demonstrating agreement or disagreement across proposals.
조건: The narrow consistency finding on the detailed transition explanation does not create missing substantive evidence for the cross-linked proposal.
2005. 12. 13.
Please _read_ these references, as they are intended to describe the transition situation in as comprehensive manner as possible.
2005. 12. 13.
the transition allows for "the continued use of AS2 space" indefinitely.
2005-01HD-ratio Proposal알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
2005-124-Byte AS Number Policy알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
2007-08Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources지지 · 3 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 검증된 일관성 평가 없음

Geoff Huston

신뢰도

관련 정보

역할

RIR 정책 참여

RIR 정책 참여