[123143] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Mon Mar 1 12:00:03 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <FC5FF0B613540249959195342B6D034CC03822@worldmax-sbs01.Worldmax.local>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:59:13 -0800
To: "Arjan van der Oest" <arjan.van.der.oest@worldmax.nl>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven@cb3rob.net>,
members-discuss@ripe.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
>> keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the=20=
>> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet =
which is=20
>> hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal...
>=20
> I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently
> non-internet-offering telco's?
Government departments/ministries? Even in the case of sector members, =
the folks who attend ITU generally are not the folks who attend =
RIR/NANOG meetings.
> Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please =
refer
> to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not
> necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.
There are, of course, plusses and minuses to country based allocations. =
On the plus side, it makes geo-location easier. On the minus side, it =
makes geo-location easier. It would also likely increase the number of =
routing prefixes announced by multi-nationals (not that this matters all =
that much in the grand scheme of things). It may also greatly simplify =
a return to the settlements-based regime that was the norm before around =
1996 or so.=20
However, I suspect the biggest change is that the moves where address =
policy is made away from the folks who are directly impacted by that =
policy (ISPs) to governments/PTTs. Please read some of the =
contributions at http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx and =
determine for yourself whether you think they would make good policies.
>> In order to accomplish that they want to create their own address=20
>> registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR =
system=20
>> (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to =
take=20
>> long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in=20=
>> their country" to use only the ITU registry...
>=20
> Why?
Because they are repressive?
> Now let's stop folding tin hats.
It has been noted in the past that you're not necessarily paranoid if =
they really are out to get you.
Regards,
-drc
