[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)

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 
>> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which is 
>> hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal...
> 
> 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. 

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 
>> registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR system 
>> (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to take 
>> long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in 
>> their country" to use only the ITU registry...
> 
> 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