인물 프로필
인물Randy Bush은(는) 인용된 공개 기록에서 인터넷 인프라와 관련된 의사결정, 소송, 거버넌스 또는 운영에 관여한 인물로 확인되며, 현재 직책과 소속은 검증 대상입니다.
확인 가능한 근거는 역할: Executive Board Member (RIPE NCC)를 다룹니다.
Randy Bush이(가) 인용된 공개 출처에서 확인됩니다.
Randy Bush이(가) 인용된 공개 출처에서 확인됩니다.
Randy Bush이(가) 인용된 공개 출처에서 확인됩니다.
Randy Bush이(가) 인용된 공개 출처에서 확인됩니다.
Randy Bush이(가) 인용된 공개 출처에서 확인됩니다.
마지막 업데이트: 2026-09-28
출처 정보
관점 일관성: 일관성
The initial institutional objection is followed by distinctions between routing and forwarding tables and by evidence about forwarding-table update costs. These technical contributions neither endorse the disputed policy approach nor retract the objection.
평가: 일관성 · The initial institutional objection is followed by distinctions between routing and forwarding tables and by evidence about forwarding-table update costs. These technical contributions neither endorse the disputed policy approach nor retract the objection.
조건: A change from an opposing comment to technical discussion is not, by itself, a change from opposition to support. · The technical claims are the author's contributions, not an independently verified assessment of every router implementation.
putting forth a policy proposal (i just love that apnic bottom-up policy development) that tells isps how we should run our routing?
on most i know, only forwarding tables are on line cards and routing tables are more centralized
updating the fibs when a rib changed (due to ospf link change), took the majority of the time, i.e., more than spf calculation.
A proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initialallocation criteria in the AsiaPacificregion · Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · An objection to Secretariat prescription of ISP routing in 2004 is not contradicted by inviting community review of NIR criteria in 2008. The latter supplies no substantive stance, so these different roles and subjects do not establish a cross-policy reversal or broad consistency.
조건: Distinguish a personal criticism from a chair's invitation to an open policy discussion.
putting forth a policy proposal (i just love that apnic bottom-up policy development) that tells isps how we should run our routing?
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
Circulating the NIR proposal and inviting support, opposition and suggested changes is a procedural act. It provides no personal vote on the recognition criteria and no sequence of substantive positions from which to assess consistency.
Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · Circulating the NIR proposal and inviting support, opposition and suggested changes is a procedural act. It provides no personal vote on the recognition criteria and no sequence of substantive positions from which to assess consistency.
조건: The invitation is jointly signed; it must not be converted into separate personal endorsements by the chairs. · The proposal attributed to Kusumba Sridhar is not treated as the chairs' authored position.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
A proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initialallocation criteria in the AsiaPacificregion · Change in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · An objection to Secretariat prescription of ISP routing in 2004 is not contradicted by inviting community review of NIR criteria in 2008. The latter supplies no substantive stance, so these different roles and subjects do not establish a cross-policy reversal or broad consistency.
조건: Distinguish a personal criticism from a chair's invitation to an open policy discussion.
putting forth a policy proposal (i just love that apnic bottom-up policy development) that tells isps how we should run our routing?
관점 일관성: 일관성
Support for exchange-point micro-allocations coexists with objections to special DNS or registry space. The technical-need distinction explains the different labels.
평가: 일관성 · Support for exchange-point micro-allocations coexists with objections to special DNS or registry space. The technical-need distinction explains the different labels.
but i do see micro-allocations for ixen as very useful.
and what TECHNICAL need/justification is there for such allocations to any of the above except exchange points?
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
One message supports removing lame delegations, with operational suggestions. It cannot establish consistency over time.
Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · One message supports removing lame delegations, with operational suggestions. It cannot establish consistency over time.
yes!!! at last, something to move towards cleaning up bad data and keeping it clean. thank you!
관점 일관성: 일관성
The experimental-allocation comments consistently prefer the IETF consensus process while explicitly leaving proposal authorship open.
Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
평가: 일관성 · The experimental-allocation comments consistently prefer the IETF consensus process while explicitly leaving proposal authorship open.
i am concerned that the rir/ietf cooperation continue to be constructive
note that this is not who may think of proposals.
관점 일관성: 일관성
The routing-table objection is followed by clarifying questions, without an explicit withdrawal of that concern.
Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Organizations
평가: 일관성 · The routing-table objection is followed by clarifying questions, without an explicit withdrawal of that concern.
will blow the routing table.
does the policy say bgp?
관점 일관성: 일관성
The objections distinguish official encouragement of private addresses from prohibiting their use, and challenge the stated interconnection rationale. No unexplained reversal is shown.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity
평가: 일관성 · The objections distinguish official encouragement of private addresses from prohibiting their use, and challenge the stated interconnection rationale. No unexplained reversal is shown.
now you want the world to bear the cost?
what i said was that we, arin, should not "encourage" it.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
평가: 일관성 · Private-addressing criticism and questions about internal infrastructure share concerns about external operational costs; the positions are compatible.
we should not be directly *encouraging* use of a technique known to be dangerous.
leakage of packets with source of unreachable addresses
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The internal-addressing questions test operational side effects; they do not establish an adoption vote or a longer-term change of position.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The internal-addressing questions test operational side effects; they do not establish an adoption vote or a longer-term change of position.
is there something we can do to not continue the pain while getting some benefit?
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
평가: 일관성 · Private-addressing criticism and questions about internal infrastructure share concerns about external operational costs; the positions are compatible.
we should not be directly *encouraging* use of a technique known to be dangerous.
leakage of packets with source of unreachable addresses
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The PIv6 message criticizes using allocation policy to influence vendors; it does not decide the proposal's RSA or utilization conditions.
ARIN-prop-54: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The PIv6 message criticizes using allocation policy to influence vendors; it does not decide the proposal's RSA or utilization conditions.
trying to use address assignment policy to affect vendors
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The 2006 question asks how a 0.98 HD-ratio affects smaller operators. It neither records a vote nor supplies a second position for comparison.
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The 2006 question asks how a 0.98 HD-ratio affects smaller operators. It neither records a vote nor supplies a second position for comparison.
and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk?
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The 2011 /16 remark couples allocation size with absurd WHOIS restrictions. Its sarcasm prevents reading it as a literal allocation proposal or a clear policy vote.
Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The 2011 /16 remark couples allocation size with absurd WHOIS restrictions. Its sarcasm prevents reading it as a literal allocation proposal or a clear policy vote.
well, they could convert to a /16. but they would only be allowed to change their whois data on odd numbered wednesdays while standing on their left foot
Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation · PI Assignments from the last /8
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The 2011 sarcasm about initial IPv6 allocations and the 2012 hypothetical opposition to PI assignments from the last /8 address different questions. They establish neither a contradiction nor a shared long-term position.
well, they could convert to a /16. but they would only be allowed to change their whois data on odd numbered wednesdays while standing on their left foot
i am not an address holder in the ripe region, despite it's rather amazing span. [ if i was one, i would not support the proposal. ]
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
In 2012, Bush says he holds no addresses in the RIPE region and would oppose the proposal if he did. This conditional statement alone establishes neither continuity nor reversal.
PI Assignments from the last /8
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · In 2012, Bush says he holds no addresses in the RIPE region and would oppose the proposal if he did. This conditional statement alone establishes neither continuity nor reversal.
i am not an address holder in the ripe region, despite it's rather amazing span. [ if i was one, i would not support the proposal. ]
Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation · PI Assignments from the last /8
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The 2011 sarcasm about initial IPv6 allocations and the 2012 hypothetical opposition to PI assignments from the last /8 address different questions. They establish neither a contradiction nor a shared long-term position.
well, they could convert to a /16. but they would only be allowed to change their whois data on odd numbered wednesdays while standing on their left foot
i am not an address holder in the ripe region, despite it's rather amazing span. [ if i was one, i would not support the proposal. ]
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
