[Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]
I didn't see this on NANOG yet, but it's caused a stir on the RIPE list.
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses? Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:03:01 +0100 From: awaite@tuenti.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group] I didn't see this on NANOG yet, but it's caused a stir on the RIPE list. --Forwarded Message Attachment-- From: ncc@ripe.net To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:20:18 +0100 Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Dear Colleagues, As you may be aware, the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) has convened an ITU IPv6 Group, the first meeting of which will be held on 15-16 March 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland. Information on this group is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipv6/ Among the group's Terms of Reference are the following: * To draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large IPv6 block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing countries (as outlined in paragraph 23 of ITU document C09/29). * To further study possible methodologies and related implementation mechanisms to ensure 'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries. * To further study the possibility for ITU to become another Internet Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to manage a reserved IPv6 block. * To further study the feasibility and advisability of implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model for those countries who would request national allocations. The ITU IPv6 Group is open to ITU Member States and Sector Members of ITU-T and ITU-D. RIRs that are not members have also been extended an invitation to participate. IPv6 address policy is clearly of critical importance to the RIPE NCC membership, and the unsympathetic implementation of any of the Terms of Reference stated above would have serious impact on the global IP address distribution environment. Members of RIPE NCC staff will be participating in this meeting of the ITU IPv6 Group to represent the interests of our members and community. The position of the RIPE NCC is based on support for smooth and reliable working of the Internet globally, and for the bottom-up, open policy development process that allows for all stakeholders, including business, government and the technical community, to participate. Some of the issues addressed in the Terms of Reference listed above are a cause for concern because they could directly affect the RIPE NCC operations as a Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Therefore, the RIPE NCC position on the Terms of Reference is as follows: * The needs of developing economies in IP address policy are important. Network operators in these economies have fair and equal access to IPv6 resources from the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and to the Policy Development Processes in their RIR and globally. Each of the RIRs has been allocated an equal block of IPv6 to distribute to networks in their region. (eg. AfriNIC has been allocated the same sized block of IPv6 as the RIPE NCC). * IPv6 allocations made by RIRs to date amount to the equivalent of 500 times the size of the entire IPv4 address pool, allocated to networks in over 150 economies. * If a significant sector in the Internet community feels that the "reservation of a large IPv6 block" for "the future needs of developing countries" is warranted, the open, bottom-up Policy Development Processes (PDPs) of the RIRs provide an appropriate forum in which to argue that case and develop such a policy. * The RIRs, as the recognised stewards of Internet Number Resources, are working, individually, jointly, and with invited experts, to engage the ITU membership. We have closely followed discussions in the ITU to date. The RIPE NCC does not believe that there are any problems that would be solved by the shift to a country-based allocation system or the installation of the ITU as an Internet Registry. The purpose of this email is to ensure that all RIPE NCC members are informed of the RIPE NCC's participation in this ITU IPv6 Group, and our position. If you have any comments or questions regarding this information, please send an email to <ncc@ripe.net>. Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC ---- 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.
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses?
For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions. - Jared
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses?
For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
I, for one, did not know this. The State Department is a rather large organization. Can you provide a link or a reference to the appropriate way to do this ? Regards Marshall
- Jared
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses?
For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
I, for one, did not know this.
The State Department is a rather large organization. Can you provide a link or a reference to the appropriate way to do this ?
Regards Marshall
Hi Marshall, Contact Anne Jillson and she'll set you up. Cheers, TV
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jillson, Anne D" <JillsonAD@STATE.GOV> Date: January 4, 2010 12:05:16 PM EST To: ITAC@LMLIST.STATE.GOV Subject: [ITAC] U.S. Delegation for the ITU Council Working Group Meetings, Jan. 25 - Feb. 5, Geneva Reply-To: "Jillson, Anne D" <JillsonAD@STATE.GOV>
We need to start forming the U.S. Delegation to the ITU Council Working Group Meetings that begin in three weeks in Geneva. If you are interested in being part of the U.S. delegation, please reply to jillsonas@state.gov no later than this Friday, Jan. 8. Please indicate if you only plan to participate in some of the meetings.
Thanks.
Anne
Anne Jillson International Communications and Information Policy EEB/CIP/MA ASRC Management Services Contractor Department of State Tel: 202-647-2592 Fax: 202-647-7407
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Tom Vest wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses?
For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
I, for one, did not know this.
The State Department is a rather large organization. Can you provide a link or a reference to the appropriate way to do this ?
Regards Marshall
Hi Marshall,
Contact Anne Jillson and she'll set you up.
Cheers,
Dear Tom; Thank you very much. Is there a list of these mailing lists anywhere ? Regards Marshall
TV
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jillson, Anne D" <JillsonAD@STATE.GOV> Date: January 4, 2010 12:05:16 PM EST To: ITAC@LMLIST.STATE.GOV Subject: [ITAC] U.S. Delegation for the ITU Council Working Group Meetings, Jan. 25 - Feb. 5, Geneva Reply-To: "Jillson, Anne D" <JillsonAD@STATE.GOV>
We need to start forming the U.S. Delegation to the ITU Council Working Group Meetings that begin in three weeks in Geneva. If you are interested in being part of the U.S. delegation, please reply to jillsonas@state.gov no later than this Friday, Jan. 8. Please indicate if you only plan to participate in some of the meetings.
Thanks.
Anne
Anne Jillson International Communications and Information Policy EEB/CIP/MA ASRC Management Services Contractor Department of State Tel: 202-647-2592 Fax: 202-647-7407
For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
In addition, if you work for a largish company, they probably have a regulatory department which may already have someone involved in ITU standardisation activities, or already involved with the State Department, or involved with the FCC. So it would be a good idea to hunt around internally (contact legal and ask them if they know of anyone dealing with regulatory issues) and then liaise with that person. In particular, if your employer is a telco, it is unlikely that the regulatory liaison knows anything about the self-regulatory RIR system, and maybe some education is in order. I believe the ITU intends to set themselves up as an alternative to the RIRs with a large IANA allocation, if they can get it. --Michael Dillon
I believe the ITU intends to set themselves up as an alternative to the RIRs with a large IANA allocation, if they can get it.
--Michael Dillon
Michael, But doesn't the IETF own the control of IPv6? Couldn't the ITU bypass IANA and get an allocation directly from them? -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU?IPv6 Group] Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:47:57AM -0500 Quoting Brandon Kim (brandon.kim@brandontek.com):
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses?
The ITU is sulking because noone cares about them anymore; everybody just runs IP instead of being obedient Phone Company customers and using E.164 numbers. By becoming provider of IPv6 space the ITU hopes to restore the notion of country code addresses and also to again become a power factor in datacom. It is no coincidence that this wacky idea centers around developing countries; since one country -- one vote still is the norm for much ITU work this is a way to move power distribution back from an economy driven model (where actual usage and amount of money invested in operations matter) to a national-state model where Internet-heavy information economies like North Korea or Bangladesh have equal voting rights as USA or Japan. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Will the third world war keep "Bosom Buddies" off the air?
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses?
ITU is trying to stay relevant and justify its existence, over the years they have been loosing their grip over telecom and networking standards. This last move to grab a chunk of IPv6 address space and become a registry does not have any valid justification and some of the reasons they have been crying out load at the IGF and ICANN meetings, all circle around ICANN's monopoly and USG control of some network resources. There is an "ecosystem" that grew up around these organizations where too many people/corporations are milking from and everybody wants to be in control of (or have a part of it) the cows. I don't know if already happened but ethernet (local, metro, wide) and TCP/IP are probably today the most deployed data communication technologies, add VoIP, keep few of the encoding and mobile (for a while) standards and I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ? Cheers Jorge
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:40 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ?
ZCZC well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong. I'll just sit on the fence: as an old radiocomms guy, I'd say ITU-_R_ is still very relevant if you guys DON'T want to watch/listen N. Korean or Bangladeshi TV/radio on your home Sat systems or car radios, to name a couple of recently quoted countries :) But ITU-T? That's one for the VoIP guys to shout about. de Gord NNNN
From: gordon b slater <gordslater@ieee.org> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:52:21 +0000
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:40 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ?
ZCZC
well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong.
I'll just sit on the fence: as an old radiocomms guy, I'd say ITU-_R_ is still very relevant if you guys DON'T want to watch/listen N. Korean or Bangladeshi TV/radio on your home Sat systems or car radios, to name a couple of recently quoted countries :)
But ITU-T? That's one for the VoIP guys to shout about.
No, it is one for everyone who does networking to shout about! ITU is exactly the sort of organization I DON'T want to see in control of the Internet. If you think IETF has gotten to unmanageable, wait until you deal with the ITU-T. It is VERY lawyer heavy. I had to attend some X.400/X.500 meetings and, while the lawyers were never "running" anything, most of the technical people could only speak through the lawyers and the suits out-numbered the techies by almost two to one. And this was a low-level working group. I understand it gets worse as you move up the ladder. The network revolution has left the ITU-T very little to do (at least compared to the old telco days) and they show every sign of wanting to bring all of us wild IP folks under control. Oh, and X.25 and X.509 are from an older organization that merged into the ITU-T when it was created, the CCITT (International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee). It became the ITU-T in 1992. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:09 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Oh, and X.25 and X.509 are from an older organization that merged into the ITU-T when it was created, the CCITT (International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee). It became the ITU-T in 1992.
Yeah, CCITT - thanks for the jog - your memory is better than mine, I was too busy `networking` on a straight hand key and cans in `92. All valves (tubes) and sparks tracking over the damp egg insulators :) I must admit to total confusion over why they need to "grab" IPs from the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed some v6 technical point totally? Gord K
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
I must admit to total confusion over why they need to "grab" IPs from the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed some v6 technical point totally?
The ITU Secretariat and a few member states (Syria being the most frequent) point to the inequality of distribution of IPv4 space and argue that developing countries must not be left out of IPv6 the same way. They have also suggested that the establishment of "Country Internet Registries" (that is, national PTT-based allocation registries) could provide competition for the RIRs, thereby using market forces to improve address allocation services. (Please note that I am not commenting on these proposals, merely trying to summarize them in a non-biased way). There are a couple of papers put out by the ITU (or perhaps more accurately, ITU-funded folks) that discuss this. If anyone cares, I can dig them up. There is much political froth being stirred up here. Regards, -drc
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, David Conrad wrote:
non-biased way). There are a couple of papers put out by the ITU (or perhaps more accurately, ITU-funded folks) that discuss this. If anyone cares, I can dig them up.
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things): http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good end-of-week belly laugh should take a look at "Delayed Contribution 93" and "Contribution 30". The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these documents is frightening. Nick
On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good end-of-week belly laugh should take a look at "Delayed Contribution 93" and "Contribution 30".
Given the folks who read/write these sorts of documents tend to make national laws attempting to implement the policies the documents describe, I'm not sure "belly laugh" is the right anatomical reaction.
The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these documents is frightening.
If you want to be really frightened, remember that the IPv4 free pool is going to be exhausted in something like 576 days. Given the lack of IPv6 deployment, the subsequent food fights that erupt as markets in IPv4 addresses are established are likely going to be "interesting". Politicians very much like to be seen to be "doing something" in interesting food fights. If this causes you any level of concern, for any of you going to APNIC, you might want to participate in http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2010/apnic-29-consultation. Regards, -drc
On 26/02/2010 22:13, David Conrad wrote:
If you want to be really frightened, remember that the IPv4 free pool is going to be exhausted in something like 576 days. Given the lack of IPv6 deployment, the subsequent food fights that erupt as markets in IPv4 addresses are established are likely going to be "interesting". Politicians very much like to be seen to be "doing something" in interesting food fights.
There is no doubt that there will be the most unholy bun-fight. Journalists will elevate themselves to the highest ivory towers and crow about how they foresaw all this happening years in advance, if only anyone had bothered to listen to them. Communications regulators will tut-tut loudly and commission long-winded reports on the effect of ipv4 starvation to the Digital Economy, and set up sub-committees and sub-sub-committees to examine potential solutions, all due to report within an 18-24 month time-frame, and all recommending migration to ipv6 over time (woohoo! - what insight!). The vendors will have a field day selling NATs, carrier grade NATs and all sorts of magical upgrades, all designed at milking the last tiny amounts of value out of each single ipv4 address - and your wallet. Notwithstanding this, their IPv6 support will still be curiously badly implemented, tacked on as an afterthought for those stingy service provider types rather than the cash-cow corporates and public sector customers who'll swallow anything that's given a good review in the trade rags. The WSIS will turn into a shouting match, or even more of a shouting match. Actually, scratch that: it'll turn into a foaming pit of rabid evangelists, each preaching their gospel of ill-informed craziness, allowing the ITU to step in and demonstrate that their mature and seasoned approach to the problem is the only realistic way of dealing with ipv4 scarcity, if only the internet and its short-sighted approach to proper standards based telco engineering were to come under their control. And the politicians. Yes, they will erupt in hitherto unseen outbursts of self-righteous indignation at the stupid internet engineers who let this problem happen in the first place and who made no provision whatsoever for viable alternatives, and will then declare the the only reasonable way of dealing with the problem is their particular type of regulation, mandating this or that but - funnily enough - very little of it making any sense whatever and all of it adding to the old maxim that there is no problem which exists which can't be made worse by regulation. As you note, anything for a couple of column inches. Oh, it will be fun. Nick
Nick Hilliard (nick) writes:
And the politicians. Yes, they will erupt in hitherto unseen outbursts of self-righteous indignation at the stupid internet engineers who let this problem happen in the first place and who made no provision whatsoever for viable alternatives,
Um, not to be the party pooper of your fire-and-brimstone scenario, but IPv6 deployment has taken quite a bit longer than expected. I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have had any effect, except maybe in Japan: look how long it took for the EU commission to jump on the bandwagon, for instance (or for that matter, how long it took any government to take IP seriously). But if was asked why IPv6 hasn't been deployed earlier, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a simple answer. "It wasn't ready" is probably not considered good enough for an elected official. BOFH excuse generator anyone ?
Oh, it will be fun.
Yay.
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:04:12 +0800 From: Phil Regnauld <regnauld@nsrc.org>
Nick Hilliard (nick) writes:
And the politicians. Yes, they will erupt in hitherto unseen outbursts of self-righteous indignation at the stupid internet engineers who let this problem happen in the first place and who made no provision whatsoever for viable alternatives,
Um, not to be the party pooper of your fire-and-brimstone scenario, but IPv6 deployment has taken quite a bit longer than expected.
I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have had any effect, except maybe in Japan: look how long it took for the EU commission to jump on the bandwagon, for instance (or for that matter, how long it took any government to take IP seriously).
But if was asked why IPv6 hasn't been deployed earlier, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a simple answer. "It wasn't ready" is probably not considered good enough for an elected official.
<rant> I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that double and triple NAT was the way of the future. It's only been over the past two years that a clear majority of the networks seemed to agree that IPv6 was the way out of the mess. (I know some are still in denial.) Among the mistakes made was the abandonment of NAT-PT as a transition mechanism. The BEHAVE working group has resurrected it and I still have hope of a decent system, but it has not happened as of today and we need it yesterday. Because so many network engineers or their managers decided that IPv6 was either not going to happen or was too far down the line to worry about, vendors got a clear message that there was no need to spend development money adding IPv6 support to products or implement it for their services. I won't go into the mistakes made by the IETF because they were doing something very un-IETF under tremendous time pressure. The standards were developed on paper with almost no working code. This was because the IETF assumed that we would run out of IPv4 long ago since the basics of IPv6 pre-date CIDR. They pre-date NAT. Yes, IPv6 has been around THAT long. At leat one network was running IPv6 on its network, available to users for testing for over 15 years ago. It's been a production service for years. Let's face reality. We have met the enemy and he is us. (Apologies to Walt Kelly.) We, the network engineers simply kept ignoring IPv6 for years after it was available. Almost all operating systems have been IPv6 capable for at least five years and most much longer. Most routers have been IPv6 ready for even longer. But we didn't move IPv6 into services nor offer it to customers. As a result, it just sat there. Code was not exercised and bugs were not found. Reasonable transition mechanisms are nowhere to be seen, and the cost of fixing this (or working around it) has grown to frightening proportions. </rant> There is a lot of blame we can spread around, but take moment and look in a mirror while you parcel it out. I think we are more responsible for the situation than anyone else. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:20 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Let's face reality. We have met the enemy and he is us. (Apologies to Walt Kelly.) We, the network engineers simply kept ignoring IPv6 for years after it was available. Almost all operating systems have been IPv6 capable for at least five years and most much longer. Most routers have been IPv6 ready for even longer. But we didn't move IPv6 into services nor offer it to customers. As a result, it just sat there. Code was not exercised and bugs were not found. Reasonable transition mechanisms are nowhere to be seen, and the cost of fixing this (or working around it) has grown to frightening proportions.
Say it brother! The fact of the matter is that by and large, the operator community not only ignored IPv6 but many poo-poo'ed it and diminished any amount of support for it from the small contingent of those who were willing to progress its deployment. In the past there were claims that it was immature and flawed but for the most part no one really wanted to commit themselves to putting up or shutting up. Meanwhile clued and semi-clued users watching from sidelines could do nothing but play in a vacuum and yell in frustration as their providers ignore them as well. I speaking as a demoralised user personally gave up begging my provider for IPv6 connectivity. Yes, there's always tunnels but that's not the answer for real deployment. Remember how well tunnels worked out for multicast? As a result, we are in a situation today where we are now scrambling to do the things that should have evolved naturally. Worse than stale code is stale procedures and the lack of long-term growth and embracement. What this means is that while we once could have taken the chance and deployed a less than perfect technology, gotten early adopters and slowly progressed mass-adoption, we are now in a position that we have to undergo a crash-course in training and operational procedures. Beyond that, the user community will need to be educated and even more effort will need to be made in order to make things user-friendly. And because of the heightened need for more modern features as well as security, I might argue that we are relatively less prepared in our IPv6 development from a software standpoint than during the infancy of the protocol. It is often much easier for everyone involved if you slowly raise the bar rather than suddenly springing an Olympic level high-jump upon them. -- /*=================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]=================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | -------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==================================================================*/
On 27/02/2010 06:20, Kevin Oberman wrote:
I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that double and triple NAT was the way of the future. It's only been over the past two years that a clear majority of the networks seemed to agree that IPv6 was the way out of the mess. (I know some are still in denial.)
Certainly, ipv6 is as popular in some quarters as global warming at a GOP convention.
Let's face reality. We have met the enemy and he is us. (Apologies to Walt Kelly.) We, the network engineers simply kept ignoring IPv6 for years after it was available.
It's not just the engineers. The problem is completely systemic to our culture. We live in a world where the planning window is the next financial quarter. If something doesn't make money during that period, then most organisations won't bother doing anything with it. And while some bits of ipv6 have been "ready" for years (icmp ping, for example), lots of other things haven't. There is a huge feature disparity in most networking equipment that I use. I still can't monitor my ipv6 BGP sessions because bgp4-mib2 hasn't been standardised. When I try to configure my firewall using the point-n-drool GUI which most people will use, it displays a friendly dialog box saying that my ipv6 configuration commands have been ignored. How many enterprise network admins are going to bother configuring ipv6 if their only configuration interface doesn't support it? The RA vs DHCPv6 debacle lingers on (and anyone who tries to claim that this isn't a debacle is living in cuckoo land), making what was supposed to be the simplest, easiest part of ipv6 a configuration mess involving multiple protocols. But the root cause is that proper ipv6 deployment costs money, and while lots of us have ipv6 deployed in our core, that's probably the easiest and cheapest part of our organisations to deploy it. After that, there's still provisioning systems, support/troubleshooting, multiple protocol stack security issues, and so forth. This is where the real deployment costs time and resources. Nick
I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that double and triple NAT was the way of the future. It's only been over the past two years that a clear majority of the networks seemed to agree that IPv6 was the way out of the mess. (I know some are still in denial.)
http://www.hactrn.net/sra/vorlons a decade old, but still rings true randy
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?
None. On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?
-- Sent from my mobile device Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
You can speak for yourself :) Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s) hosted by the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining them. - Jared On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
None.
On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?
-- Sent from my mobile device
Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jared Mauch wrote: > You can speak for yourself :) > Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s) hosted by the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining them. Yep, I would agree that the "Internet technical community," as they like to pigeonhole us, were well-represented at the meeting, and in the process running up to the meeting. -Bill
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the meeting. All five RIRs were represented, as was ISOC. The notable absence was ICANN. Of course, this sample is by no means representative of the entire community, but it's more than "None." On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote:
None.
On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?
-- Sent from my mobile device
Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually. Regards, -drc On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the meeting. All five RIRs were represented, as was ISOC. The notable absence was ICANN. Of course, this sample is by no means representative of the entire community, but it's more than "None."
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote:
None.
On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?
-- Sent from my mobile device
Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
That's odd. I was invited, by the US, but I'd scheduled CORE's technical meeting in Dortmund the following week, and there is only so much away time I can schedule while my wife is a 1L at Cornell Law, so I sent my regrets. The utility of going, as part of the US ISP delegation, and being excluded from even observing, seems odd. Anyway, the point of my question is how much clue is available when and where policy is made, visibly in the neighborhood of zero through ICANN's (and this is not drcs' fault, far from it) vehicle for ISP participation in policy making. So what is it in the ITU playpen? The value appears to be in the same range. I could be completely mistaken, hence the question. The short form of my contribution to the issues discussion is that iso3166 in the IANA root solved a scaling problem (epoch==Jon Postel), but left stateless peoples waiting for DNS Godot. A CIR model has the same issue for v6 allocation, leaving the same peoples waiting for a single v6 block Godot. Agreement is not mandatory. Eric On 3/30/10 8:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Regards, -drc
On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the meeting. All five RIRs were represented, as was ISOC. The notable absence was ICANN. Of course, this sample is by no means representative of the entire community, but it's more than "None."
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote:
None.
On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?
-- Sent from my mobile device
Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
Why isn't this on YouTube? j On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Regards, -drc --
Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Why isn't this on YouTube?
You'd have to ask the ITU secretariat. I'd note that they do audiocast meetings such as this, however you have to have a "TIES" account to gain access to it. Not sure how one would go about getting a TIES account. Regards, -drc
I'm talking the ITU refusing ICANN entrance at the door.. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:18 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Why isn't this on YouTube?
You'd have to ask the ITU secretariat. I'd note that they do audiocast meetings such as this, however you have to have a "TIES" account to gain access to it. Not sure how one would go about getting a TIES account.
Regards, -drc
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly, It is just another 501(c)(3) incorporated in California. Just as the ITU is just another treaty organization. The basis for cooperation has to be mutual interest, not mere assertion of presence, and getting to maybe after a long, and not very cooperative history, isn't necessarily YouTube material. FWIW, CORE was formed at the ITU, and nominally our relationship with the ITU is slightly less awful than ... any other lobbyist or actor in the room when Asst. Sec. Gomez was introduced to the community last Winter. At least, I said so and no one bothered to point out that I was either wrong or an idiot. Both those things could yet happen. Eric
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:18 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Why isn't this on YouTube?
You'd have to ask the ITU secretariat. I'd note that they do audiocast meetings such as this, however you have to have a "TIES" account to gain access to it. Not sure how one would go about getting a TIES account.
Regards, -drc
$20,000/year to the ITU secretariat to become a sector member. Owen
Actually, it's 31,800 CHF == 30,170 USD. Plus, you have to get the approval of your local government even to submit an application. <http://www.itu.int/members/sectmem/Form.pdf> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:18 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Why isn't this on YouTube?
You'd have to ask the ITU secretariat. I'd note that they do audiocast meetings such as this, however you have to have a "TIES" account to gain access to it. Not sure how one would go about getting a TIES account.
Regards, -drc
$20,000/year to the ITU secretariat to become a sector member.
Owen
Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I think that the ITU invited the RIR's. Jared. Mailing lists don't count :) Best, Marty On 3/30/10, Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the meeting. All five RIRs were represented, as was ISOC. The notable absence was ICANN. Of course, this sample is by no means representative of the entire community, but it's more than "None."
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote:
None.
On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?
-- Sent from my mobile device
Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
-- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
Jared. Mailing lists don't count :)
When the invitation goes out to the list membership saying "Who is going to be at X and needs creds/whatnot" that certainly counts. Sorry you don't see it that way. - Jared
I'm not disagreeing. But see DRC's comment. Best, -M< On 3/30/10, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
Jared. Mailing lists don't count :)
When the invitation goes out to the list membership saying "Who is going to be at X and needs creds/whatnot" that certainly counts.
Sorry you don't see it that way.
- Jared
-- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
On Mar 11, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that double and triple NAT was the way of the future. It's only been over the past two years that a clear majority of the networks seemed to agree that IPv6 was the way out of the mess. (I know some are still in denial.)
http://www.hactrn.net/sra/vorlons
a decade old, but still rings true
randy
It's a nice essay, but the author seems to have overlooked the contingent fact that he's a member of a species that is actually supported by the ecosystem that he's writing about. The Sahara Desert is an ecosystem too, as is the surface of the moon. Of course, the Internet is really only like an ecosystem in the way that Tokyo and Los Angeles and Lagos are individually like ecosystems. If you think you'd be indifferent to the question of which of these places you'd prefer to live in, and prefer your children to live in -- even knowing that there are no suburbs or country retreats to escape to, anywhere -- then I guess it really is just a philosophical question. TV
On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote:
I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have had any effect, except maybe in Japan:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things: - tax incentivise ipv6 compliance - make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese government technical contracts. The effect of this was to 1) create a direct financial incentive to deploy meaningfully, and 2) create an indirect financial incentive to deploy ipv6 meaningfully. Spot the pattern here? Nick
Long time ago (10+ years, Randy, others, correct me if I'm wrong) Japan had the vision and strategy for embracing IPv6 to assume a leadership position in the data telecommunications market. I remember how often during our (VRIO) IPO due diligence and later when the company became part of NTT, IPv6 was on every single conversation and plans. IPv6 was a must know, must do, must have. They knew and understood from the begining, yeah it is not a perfect protocol, yeah it is does not provide "security" per se, yeah many will start a catfight about NAT and other stuff, no it is not a conspiracy from router vendors to sell you more gear. IPv4 address space is a finite resource and sooner or later we will run out of it, then the earlier we prepare for its replacement the better. Meanwhile as you said, for others long term vision means the next quarter. Jorge
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote:
I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have had any effect, except maybe in Japan:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
- tax incentivise ipv6 compliance - make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese government technical contracts.
The effect of this was to 1) create a direct financial incentive to deploy meaningfully, and 2) create an indirect financial incentive to deploy ipv6 meaningfully. Spot the pattern here?
If you are a network contractor for the US government or a vendor selling network equipment to the DOD then you've had a similar incentive, if it's not there, you're not going to end up on the approved suppliers list.
Nick
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
- tax incentivise ipv6 compliance - make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese government technical contracts.
The effect of this was to 1) create a direct financial incentive to deploy meaningfully, and 2) create an indirect financial incentive to deploy ipv6 meaningfully. Spot the pattern here?
If you are a network contractor for the US government or a vendor selling network equipment to the DOD then you've had a similar incentive, if it's not there, you're not going to end up on the approved suppliers list.
I get the impression that in Japan the incentives led to real deployment, but not in the US - which is a big FAIL for DOD procurement policy. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
- tax incentivise ipv6 compliance - make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese government technical contracts.
The effect of this was to 1) create a direct financial incentive to deploy meaningfully, and 2) create an indirect financial incentive to deploy ipv6 meaningfully. Spot the pattern here? If you are a network contractor for the US government or a vendor selling network equipment to the DOD then you've had a similar incentive, if it's not there, you're not going to end up on the approved suppliers list.
I get the impression that in Japan the incentives led to real deployment, but not in the US - which is a big FAIL for DOD procurement policy.
Having responded to rfp/rfi requests from US governement entities and their contractors I can assure you that not having ipv6 support in the network design, and on the equipment to be deployed, along with the usual other requirements (fips 140-2/cc eal 4/etc) was um not going to fly (literally in some cases).
Tony.
I get the impression that in Japan the incentives led to real deployment
nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6. do not believe powerpoint. randy
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6.
do not believe powerpoint.
NTT also charges its (wholesale) IP transit customers a premium for v6 connectivity in Asia. Dorian can speak better to their rationale, though I can't see it helping foster adoption in this economy. Drive Slow, Paul Wall
On Mar 3, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6.
do not believe powerpoint.
NTT also charges its (wholesale) IP transit customers a premium for v6 connectivity in Asia.
Dorian can speak better to their rationale, though I can't see it helping foster adoption in this economy.
(Yes, I know how silly this seems, but read on for useful stuff) It would help if you would each identify which NTT you speak of. There are a variety of NTT lines of business as can be seen here: http://www.ntt.co.jp/csr_e/2009report/group.html It's also my understanding that they own flower shops. -- Useful information to follow -- If you have not yet joined the US State Department Delegation and are interested, please let me know and I will connect you with the right people. I saw a message earlier today to collect the names that are interested. "Formation of a U.S. Delegation to the ITU Meeting on IPv6, March 15 and 16 in Geneva" - Jared
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these documents is frightening.
Indeed. A username@domain is as valid a VOIP ID as is a traditional telephone number. And country coded TLDs can be moved around the net more easily than telephone country codes tied to a national carrier network. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem. One of the great things about IPv6's address space being mindbogglingly large is that there's plenty of it to experiment with. If the ITU wants an RIR-sized block to do RIR-like work, so what? If they wanted a /2 or /4 I'd be concerned, or if there were many organizations out there that wanted RIR-sized chunks, but ITU's close enough to unique that they're not going to cause the space to run out. And sure, maybe they're sufficiently outdated and irrelevant that they could get by with a /16, but it might be interesting to have somebody assigning IPv6 addresses as :prefix:e164:host or whatever. (Admittedly, that made more sense back when e.164 addresses were 12 digits as opposed to the current 15.) -- ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem.
It breaks the existing regional allocation and policy development process model establishing a second source that will probably not just want to "allocate" but also develop a parallel policy that will most probably not be consistent or compatible with the other RIR's. My .02
On 26/02/2010 22:59, Bill Stewart wrote to nanog:
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem.
The ITU is magic. I am no expert, but I am aware that sometimes the ITU decision making processes leads to member states having to adopt those decisions as telecoms law. I would not want to replace the very good address policy that I follow today with laws and procedures that look like the ones used for telephone numbers. This is a very real danger. That governments can form telecoms law, leads me to the conclusion that we can have an RIR led addressing structure *or* a government one, and not both.
One of the great things about IPv6's address space being mindbogglingly large is that there's plenty of it to experiment with.
No. My IPv6 network is production now. As are the IPv6 networks of many other people on the list. Please don't do experiments with addressing policy, such behaviour tends to leave a nasty legacy. On 01/03/2010 08:55, Arjan van der Oest wrote to members-discuss:
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. Andy
The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these documents is frightening.
Are the ITU folks planning to manage IPv6 address space allocations the same way they number their documents (ie no more than 100 docs per subject on the Y series) ? ;-}
On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good end-of-week belly laugh should take a look at "Delayed Contribution 93" and "Contribution 30".
The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these documents is frightening.
Nick
What is more frightening is that when these authors get their contributions turned into ITU policy, it often carries the force of law in many jurisdictions. Owen
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
yeah, yeah, ITU still making noise with the Y Series docs and NGN (Next Generation Networks) framework. Jeloooouuuuuuu ITU, kind of you are 25+ years late ...
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:43:11 -0800 David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
I must admit to total confusion over why they need to "grab" IPs from the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed some v6 technical point totally?
The ITU Secretariat and a few member states (Syria being the most frequent) point to the inequality of distribution of IPv4 space and argue that developing countries must not be left out of IPv6 the same way. They have also suggested that the establishment of "Country Internet Registries" (that is, national PTT-based allocation registries) could provide competition for the RIRs, thereby using market forces to improve address allocation services.
I think that "PTT" is the operative token here, but for reasons having nothing to do with competition. If all they wanted was competition, the easy answer would be to set up more registries -- or registrars -- not bounded by geography; as long as the number wasn't too large, it wouldn't do too much violence to the size of the routing tables. If a PTT-like body is *the* registry for a country, and if the country chose to require local ISPs and business to obtain address space from it, what's the natural prefix announcement to the world? Right -- that country's registry prefix, which means that all traffic to that country just naturally flows through the PTT's routers and DPI boxes. And it benefits everyone, right? It really cuts down on the number of prefixes we have to worry about.... It's funny -- just yesterday, I was telling my class that the Internet's connectivity was not like the pre-deregulation telco model. The latter had O(1) telco/country, with highly regulated interconnections to anywhere else. The Internet grew up under the radar, partly because of the deregulatory climate and partly because especially in the early days, it wasn't facilities-based -- if you wanted an international link to a peer or a branch office, you just leased the circuit. The result was much richer connectivity than in the telco world, and -- in some sense -- less "order". Syria wants to roll the clock back. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Syria wants to roll the clock back.
Not only Syria, some developed countries want to have 100% control of the "big switch" to turn the net off/on, if possible on a packet by packet basis. PTT = Prehistoric Telecommunications Technologies ... IMHO the most important driving factor behind all these are just politics and power. -J
On Feb 26, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
I think that "PTT" is the operative token here, but for reasons having nothing to do with competition. If all they wanted was competition, the easy answer would be to set up more registries -- or registrars -- not bounded by geography; as long as the number wasn't too large, it wouldn't do too much violence to the size of the routing tables.
If a PTT-like body is *the* registry for a country, and if the country chose to require local ISPs and business to obtain address space from it, what's the natural prefix announcement to the world? Right -- that country's registry prefix, which means that all traffic to that country just naturally flows through the PTT's routers and DPI boxes. And it benefits everyone, right? It really cuts down on the number of prefixes we have to worry about....
Until routing domains (i.e., ASNs) are carved up to become congruent to national boundaries for national security, censorship or other reasons. When this happens, not only will those IPv6 prefixes become fragmented, so to will their legacy IPv4 space, and certainly to the detriment of routing scalability, security, and stability. Then add something like RPKI to the mix and you've got a very effective hammer to enforce national policy - all network operators will use the national RPKI trust anchor, and all of your address space will be allocated (and certified) strictly from this national Internet registry - so that they can surgically control precisely who can reach you, and who you can reach - within the whole of the global routing system, and DPI, tariffing, etc.. are all much akin to models of yester that they can wrap their heads around. And all the efforts and bottom-up policy driven by the RIRs in the current model will dry up, as will the RIR revenue sources, and their much wider contributions to the Internet community. If you think the RIRs and the current model sucks, well, consider the alternatives. For that matter, so to better the RIRs and their constituents.
It's funny -- just yesterday, I was telling my class that the Internet's connectivity was not like the pre-deregulation telco model. The latter had O(1) telco/country, with highly regulated interconnections to anywhere else. The Internet grew up under the radar, partly because of the deregulatory climate and partly because especially in the early days, it wasn't facilities-based -- if you wanted an international link to a peer or a branch office, you just leased the circuit. The result was much richer connectivity than in the telco world, and -- in some sense -- less "order". Syria wants to roll the clock back.
I can't believe that the current model of more dense interconnection, continued disintermediation, and a far more robust IP fabric would evolve to be more resilient and robust from national Internet registry allocation models or the Internet routing system rearchitecting that's sure to follow. Of course, if the ITU-T is serious about this, they should probably be asking for a good chunk of 32-bit ASNs as well, but that's a bit more difficult to do under the auspices of liberating IPv6. -danny
There is much political froth being stirred up here.
I don't see what the big deal is. It was patently unfair not to give every country a one-digit country code like the US and Russia have. So they don't want to make the same mistake with IPv6. R's, John
well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong.
Some of the encoding stds are not that bad. The X series and colored books are from the CCITT era, that BTW given that they were "Recommendations" many phone companies and equipment vendors didn't give a squat and implemented them as they pleased, interoperability was a challenge and sort of an art of the dark ages of telecommunications. I still remember getting my butt smoked trying to get a derivate Spanish implementation of X.25 talking with the Turkish one. ITU has nothing to do with managing Internet address and name space, if they want to go back to the dark ages of networking they can build their own network and use CLNP or RSCS ala BITNET. Cheers Jorge
participants (32)
-
Adam Waite -
Andy Davidson -
Antonio Querubin -
Bill Stewart -
Bill Woodcock -
Brandon Kim -
Danny McPherson -
David Conrad -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
gordon b slater -
Jake Khuon -
Jared Mauch -
joel jaeggli -
Joel Jaeggli
-
John Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Jorge Amodio -
Kevin Oberman -
Mans Nilsson -
Marshall Eubanks -
Martin Hannigan -
Michael Dillon -
Nick Hilliard -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Wall -
Phil Regnauld -
Randy Bush -
Richard Barnes -
Skeeve Stevens -
Steven M. Bellovin -
Tom Vest -
Tony Finch