March 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Arjan van der Oest 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

Skeeve wrote: > Are you really serious about that? The issues seem to me much bigger than > competition though. Yes sir, in theory/conceptually. > The ITU - being an RIR wouldn't satisfy what it seems to setting out trying to > do. Making them an RIR under the current system seems pointless as they aren't > giving off much of a 'team player' vibe... more a fanatical religious > vibe.. They will just define their own policies - which in the end may have an > actual realised negative impact on the routing system - the details of which are > for a different discussion. Again: as long as they don't interfere with IANA and RIR's and assuming there is no aluminum hat conspiracy that tries to achieve world-domination-via-ipv6 I wish them all the best. If they wish to implement some ridiculous policies concerning the assignment of IPv6 space via the ITU, let them. The result will be that all the telco's and ISP's will continue to use the current RIR's and ITU will prove their existence is useless. > Given that the ITU, like the RIR, are a member driven system.... that to me > suggests that there are specific members who are pushing for this... I've heard > 'Syria' being tossed around as an agitator in this... but that there are other > supporters who are not happy with the US Government dominance/control of the > process. Which I can imagine, without the urge to start a political discussion here :) > But the RIR system has been running for a long time... and 'not badly' for the > most part.... so why do we really need to change anything? Why are people so scared of change? It's not a bad thing... > Really.. if there were MASSIVE problems with the RIR system, the members would > have kicked some ass a long time ago. Imho there is no massive problem with the RIR system, although there is always room for improvement. Again, my only point is: allocating space to ITU may settle whatever worries they have. I'm just trying to point out that competition (and change) are not a bad thing and I'm reluctant to start seeking conspiracies about world domination via ipv6. Let's see what it is ITU is *really* trying to get done, let's chat about it and then let's see what is wise. With all respect to Sven Kamphuis, that is exactly the reaction I would not see as the best towards the UN and ITU. Just my 2 cents -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest(a)worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail.

1 0

Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Andy Davidson 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

On 01/03/2010 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote: > Andy wrote: >>> 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. > Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still > have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were required to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of choice would NOT be the case. > Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-) My point entirely. :-) Andy

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Jon Morby | fido 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

On 1 Mar 2010, at 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote: > Andy wrote: > >>> 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. > > Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still > have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? > > Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-) > Oh I don't know ... the whole concept leaves a nasty taste in my mouth ... :) > -- > Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, > Worldmax Operations B.V. > > Arjan van der Oest > Network Design Engineer > > T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 > F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 > M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 > > E.: arjan.van.der.oest(a)worldmax.nl > W.:www.worldmax.nl > W.:www.aerea.nl > GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F > 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) > > Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. Regards, Jon Morby FidoNet Registration Services Ltd web: www.fido.net tel: +44 (0) 845 004 3050 fax: +44 (0) 845 004 3051

1 0