|<<< Chronological >>>||Author Index Subject Index||<<< Threads >>>|
[im-support] Re: Comments on NRO Response to ITU Proposal on IP numbersdistribution...
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:34:47 +0100
We understand that we may have overstated this point and should clarify our position. In our response text we said, "The ITU memorandum has proposed a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities." While we acknowledge that the ITU proposal is not exclusive to national authorities, we still maintain that this does not undermine the issues we have raised in our response to the ITU memorandum. This includes, in particular, issues relating to the disruption that would be caused by setting up competing distribution services for IPv6 addresses, and the negative impact this would have on address space routability.
Thank you for your posting of support.
Head of Member Services and Communications
>> on 16/11/2004 you wrote:
I have been following RIR co-ordinated work on IP addresses
distribution and especially in the IPv6 field where all RIRs have
converged on a common policy which has proved to be quite fair and
While, I completely disagree with the proposal of ITU concerning IPv6
addresses distribution and while I fully support RIRs for their
technical arguments, I don't agree with your introduction which I
As a matter of fact, you say:
"The ITU memorandum has proposed a new IPv6 address space distribution
process, based solely on national authorities. "
==> This is incorrect! Because the ITU proposal is not _solely_ based
on national authorities. I quote from ITU document in paragraph 4.2.b:
I have discussed with some industry experts my idea to reserve a block
of IPv6 addresses for allocation by authorities of countries, that is,
assigning a block to a country at no cost, and letting the country
itself manage this kind of address in IPv6. By assigning addresses to
countries, we will enable any particular user to choose their
preferred source of addresses: either the country-assigned ones or the
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So please correct your introduction, otherwise all your arguments may
be dismissed because your interpretation is not totally faithful to
the original proposal.
Thanks for your efforts and good luck,
Mohsen, IPv6 Engineer (not speaking for his company).
|<<< Chronological >>>||Author Subject||<<< Threads >>>|