Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
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
Andy scribbled:
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.
True. Like I said in my initial reply to members-discuss (and while playing a devil's advocate role), I'm not entirely sure what it is that ITU is striving for : replacing IANA or just becoming a nationwide RIR. In the latter case this would not automatically mean (also assuming that local governments will not further interfere in this process) that ITU would be your one and only one-stop-shop for integers. 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. If Telco's want to request their IP's from ITU instead of RIPE, they have my utterly blessings... *zipping my Dr. Pepper* -- 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@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.
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.
That will be an extremely bad idea. ITU is aspiring to be a global RIR. Once upon a time since the network architecture/protocols/technology required the assignment/allocation of particular object identifiers that must be globally unique we had Jon Postel's authoritative notepad that later assumed the IANA name and became institutionalized as ICANNzilla. On the address space IANA delegates part of its authority to regional registries and even when there are some common practices and guidelines/policies, each registry establishes its own policies via a bottom-up policy development process for address allocation and how to deal with issues associated with this practice. Since there are requirements/policies associated, each RIR indirectly acts as a soft "regulator" by applying the terms and conditions and collecting fees. It is not a perfect "system" and if something is wrong with a particular RIR or policy that is what needs to be fixed, not create an alternative channel that intends to override the existing "authority" delegation tree by developing its own policies and trying to enforce them through national governments telecom regulations, which imho is what ITU is attempting to do. Basic example (bah very stupid one), Johnny SPAM-BoTnEt on country XX wants IP address space for his operations that in XX-land may not be considered illegal, when service providers direct him to the appropriate RIR there is a chance that the RIR will give a hard time to Johnny to get his address space due the obscurity of his operations that may be illegal in other countries within the region. Then Johnny will go to King of XX who will call his nephew at ITU to get the address space for poor Johnny. Not good. -J
participants (3)
-
Andy Davidson -
Arjan van der Oest -
Jorge Amodio