[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Zoe O'Connell zoe at hotchilli.com
Mon Mar 1 15:39:08 CET 2010
Arjan van der Oest wrote: > But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on > why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication > networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on > the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same > geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of > nationwide RIR. This presumes that competition that results in providing services more attractive (Not necessarily just lower monetary cost) to those applying for IP addresses is a good thing - I would argue very strongly that in fact this is something to be avoided. I can think of a few situations where the efforts of RIPE policy groups would be thwarted by having to "compete" with another IR. In particular, aggregation, accountability (RIPE 2007-01!) and address space preservation policies would all come under pressure from competition if the ITU or another body operated a more lax policy than the existing RIRs. (Presumably, other RIRs would be similarly affected, but I am not particularly well versed about other RIRs policies) I think we have to be careful here to avoid Hardin's "Tragedy of the commons" where the needs of the individuals is put above the needs of the whole. The current system, which is heavily influenced by Service Providers who are the primary stakeholders both commercially and technically in this works well. It's not ideal - one of my pet gripes is that the PI Address Space system often gets overlooked as end users that require SP independence have little voice, plus there's an obvious problem with developing nations coming late to the party and getting a smaller piece of the IPv4 pie but IPv6 hopefully fixes that anyway. I still feel it's better than trying to arrange competition.