[123023] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Fri Feb 26 13:43:53 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:43:11 -0800
To: gordslater@ieee.org
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
> I must admit to total confusion over why they need to "grab" IPs from
> the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of
> band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed some v6 technical point
> totally?
The ITU Secretariat and a few member states (Syria being the most =
frequent) point to the inequality of distribution of IPv4 space and =
argue that developing countries must not be left out of IPv6 the same =
way. They have also suggested that the establishment of "Country =
Internet Registries" (that is, national PTT-based allocation registries) =
could provide competition for the RIRs, thereby using market forces to =
improve address allocation services. (Please note that I am not =
commenting on these proposals, merely trying to summarize them in a =
non-biased way). There are a couple of papers put out by the ITU (or =
perhaps more accurately, ITU-funded folks) that discuss this. If anyone =
cares, I can dig them up.
There is much political froth being stirred up here.
Regards,
-drc
