Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses
With all the recent discussion on IPv6 and the allocation thereof, I havent noticed any discussion of the Director of ITU-TSB's memorandum, "ITU and Internet Governance" To quote an email from the MD of RIPE to a large number of ripe mailing lists "This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities. This could have a serious impact on RIPE NCC Members, Internet operators and the global Internet community at large"[1] The original ITU memorandum is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.doc or http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.pdf Its not an idea that fills me with joy, but I'd be iterested to hear the opinions of this mailing list Vince [1] This email included the phrase "We urge our members and others in the Internet community to make their views about this issue known." so if anyone wants to read it who hasnt I can forward a copy.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:16:43PM +0000, Vince Hoffman <jhary@unsane.co.uk> wrote a message of 22 lines which said:
"This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This is a wrong presentation of the ITU document and the NRO fixed that bug: http://www.nro.net/documents/statements/nro-clarification.html
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:16:43PM +0000, Vince Hoffman <jhary@unsane.co.uk> wrote a message of 22 lines which said:
"This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This is a wrong presentation of the ITU document and the NRO fixed that bug:
http://www.nro.net/documents/statements/nro-clarification.html
Thanks for the pointer, many thanks to all who replied. Vince
On 22-nov-04, at 21:16, Vince Hoffman wrote:
"This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This is not exactly what it says in
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.pdf
A quote: "The early allocation of IPv4 addresses resulted in geographic imbalances and an excessive possession of the address space by early adopters. This situation was recognized and addressed by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). However, despite their best efforts, and even though a very large portion of the IPv4 space has not been assigned, some believe that there is a shortage of IPv4 addresses and voice concerns regarding the principles and managements of the current system. Some developing countries have raised issues regarding IP address allocation. It is important to ensure that similar concerns do not arise with respect to IPv6. I have discussed with some industry experts my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at no cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of address in IPv6. By assigning addresses to countries, we will enable any particular user to choose their preferred source of addresses: either the countryassigned ones or the region/international-assigned ones."
Of course, then, the developing countries (and, more importantly, the countries with large viral or spammer populations) are then faced with the question of whether anyone will route their prefixes. Won't that make the ITU happy. Owen --On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:16 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
On 22-nov-04, at 21:16, Vince Hoffman wrote:
"This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This is not exactly what it says in
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.pdf
A quote:
"The early allocation of IPv4 addresses resulted in geographic imbalances and an excessive possession of the address space by early adopters. This situation was recognized and addressed by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). However, despite their best efforts, and even though a very large portion of the IPv4 space has not been assigned, some believe that there is a shortage of IPv4 addresses and voice concerns regarding the principles and managements of the current system. Some developing countries have raised issues regarding IP address allocation. It is important to ensure that similar concerns do not arise with respect to IPv6. I have discussed with some industry experts my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at no cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of address in IPv6. By assigning addresses to countries, we will enable any particular user to choose their preferred source of addresses: either the countryassigned ones or the region/international-assigned ones."
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:23:28AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Of course, then, the developing countries (and, more importantly, the countries with large viral or spammer populations) are then faced with the question of whether anyone will route their prefixes. Won't that make the ITU happy.
Owen
well... some evidence that folks can/do route prefixes that host large viral/spammer populations can be found here: http://postini.com/stats/ anyone want to blackhole the east-coast of the USA? --bill
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:16:53 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
not arise with respect to IPv6. I have discussed with some industry experts my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at no cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of address in IPv6. By assigning addresses to countries, we will enable any particular user to choose their preferred source of addresses: either the countryassigned ones or the region/international-assigned ones."
Down side: This seems to cater to those places with an incumbent telco monopoly - if there's competition, we probably long term end up with pretty massive deaggregation anyhow. (Imagine 3 telcos, each with their own pipe across the border that land at different places....) Up side: It's a lot easier to track down all the netblocks said telco has when you decide you're fed up with their non-stellar abuse@ response. At least we'd minimize the accidental collateral damage we see now in IPv4 when a site that's fed up with Chinese/Korean spam blocks the whole /8 and takes part of Australia or New Zealand with it.... What will probably actually happen - the incumbent telco will get their prefix, and the abusive users will find ways to get an announcement of their sub-allocation of a regional prefix anyhow (so we end up with the worst of both worlds)...
participants (6)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Owen DeLong -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vince Hoffman