[123125] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Davidson)
Mon Mar 1 06:07:46 2010
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:06:56 +0000
From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org, members-discuss@ripe.net
In-Reply-To: <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 26/02/2010 22:59, Bill Stewart wrote to nanog:
> Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem.
The ITU is magic. I am no expert, but I am aware that sometimes the ITU
decision making processes leads to member states having to adopt those
decisions as telecoms law.
I would not want to replace the very good address policy that I follow
today with laws and procedures that look like the ones used for
telephone numbers. This is a very real danger.
That governments can form telecoms law, leads me to the conclusion that
we can have an RIR led addressing structure *or* a government one, and
not both.
> One of the great things about IPv6's address space being
> mindbogglingly large is that there's plenty of it to experiment with.
No. My IPv6 network is production now. As are the IPv6 networks of
many other people on the list. Please don't do experiments with
addressing policy, such behaviour tends to leave a nasty legacy.
On 01/03/2010 08:55, Arjan van der Oest wrote to members-discuss:
> Competition is not a bad thing.
Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my
integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the
government makes me ask them for some integers.
Andy
