- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE invoice 2010-I
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 03 Mar '10

03 Mar '10

we noticed ripe bills as numbers in use by the LIR -themselves- as "Independant resources" rather than the points-based billing model.. surely this was not what the 2007-1 policy was intended to do? i'd say AS numbers in use by the lir themselves fall under the normal points model still, just like PA ipv4 and ipv6 resources... exactly what is so "independant" about our OWN AS number remains unclear to me. scrape a few extra bucks for ripe. RIPE billing department in the mean while claims that this is not an error...

5 6

RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

There you go. let the riots commence 2.0.... 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... it's just that the UN and their ITU do... If we allow them to go forward, this WILL result in a "per country" easy-to-filter internet in a few years when ipv6 is the only serious protocol left. we only need to point out how easy it was for the DDR to simply route all phonecalls to "the west" through a room where people monitored telephone conversations, and this "country specific prefix" is just what the ITU seems to want for the internet. 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... also very nice of them to invite the "RIRS" to be present at their little negotiation rounds, where the RIRS can each have one vote against oh eh, 150 or so of their members... very democratic.. 5 against 150.. And i bet you they'll go "yes but the RIRs were present at our meetings" in the end, so its better to just send them a letter telling them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and not even go to their little meetings. How does this relate to our situation in germany: Now for those complaining about me posting to the piratenpartei lists in ENOTGERMAN, too bad for you people... the world is slightly larger than those 140 million or so people that use german on a daily basis. I can personally assure you von der leyen and schaubele would have had wet dreams about this ITU proposal a few months ago still..., and you never know, we may get simular politicians again in the future... (makes it -really- easy to filter all kinds of government-undesired content and activities...) now -we- can always move our office to some other country and take our tax money to some other resort, not a biggie, but don't come complaining to me when germany at some point uses this to build their own chinese bigass golden firewall with flames coming out of its ass to make it faster. i'd say its better to simply not give them the chance to do so. methods available to isps/telcos to stop this: - point out to governments that -we- own the internet, their economy runs over it as a "courtesy" and that we can send them back to the stoneage at any time we like by simply dropping 'their' traffic. (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network, they don't have any other option than to remain friends with us, while -we- can move our business to -any- of the 208 countries or so worldwide, wether the UN likes those countries or not, and pay taxes -there-, and most of the likely candidates are nice and warm and have a beach too and are willing to make deals in the "guaranteed information freedom" aspect ;) - if they get this done, simply ignore their registry, maybe introduce overlaps - if they get this done, drop the whole ipv6 implementation plans and move on to some "next" protocol or even keep ipv4 around if we have to. they need us, we don't need them Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what has your country ever done for you. we have the biggest stick in this matter. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:52:04 +0100 From: Michiel Ettema <MEttema(a)alkmaar.nl> To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Maybe this will give you an insight in what is planned: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/oth/01/0B/D010B0000073301PDFE.pdf page 89. - 777 - 14. As the use of the Internet and other new technologies increase, - more criminals are provided with opportunities to commit crimes remotely, - via telephone lines and data networks. Presently, malicious programming - code and harmful communications (such as child pornography) may pass - through several carriers located in different countries. And - infrastructures such as banking and finance increasingly are becoming - networked and thereby vulnerable to cyber-attack from distant locations. - We convene today to provide additional personal attention to and - direction for our joint action against this transnational criminality. If the ITU gets registry status I think it wil not be long before their Cybercrime legislation proposals will state that the only safe adres space is ITU adres space. This because a country can subject that adres space to their own laws. Now excuse me a minute while I fold my tin foil hat. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] Namens Arjan van der Oest Verzonden: maandag 1 maart 2010 15:24 Aan: Andy Davidson; members-discuss(a)ripe.net; nanog(a)nanog.org Onderwerp: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group 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(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. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- 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.

11 12

[ncc-announce] ITU and IPv6 Consultation
by RIPE NCC 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Dear Colleagues, On behalf of APNIC, we would like to draw your attention to an important community consultation taking place on 3 March 2010. ______________________________________________________________________ APNIC Community Consultation Wednesday, 3 March 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ The ITU is considering the possibility of becoming an International Internet Registry, as well as the possible implementation of a Country Internet Registry model to use as an alternative to the Regional Internet Registry system. APNIC's Community Consultation session on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 is your opportunity to discuss the issues and ramifications of the ITU's possible entry into the IP address management arena. Participate onsite ------------------ Where: Conference Hall 2, Kuala Lumpur Convention Center When: 14:00 - 15:30 Participate online ------------------ When: Kuala Lumpur time: 14:00 - 15:30 UTC: 6:00 - 7:30 How: Audio and video streaming Interactive chat Live transcripts For more information about how to attend this session remotely, see: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/remote For more information about this session, refer to: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/program/consultation You are also invited to submit written contributions to this session to: ipv6(a)apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

[gih@apnic.net: Re: [apnic-talk] [AusNOG] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]
by Daniel Karrenberg 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

This is a nicely relevant post from the sister list apnic-talk. Enjoy Daniel

1 0

AW: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
by Niels Dettenbach 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

> ... several less-democratic nations have already proven ... Shurely? This seems new to me, even if some countries try this hard. Even in countries with hard laws of regulation exist's private or "non-regulated" IP communication over satellite or other (typically "wireless") media or - if IP exist in such countries but is controlled - over simple to use anonymizer and/or mixer proxies by encrypted connections. And btw: Even simple things like hard encryption was not allowed in many "developed" countries (US, Europa) over many years (which brought up south africans like Marc S. and others...). Afaik using a sat dish in countries like Iran or Burma (myan mar) was/is not allowed without a "public" governmental license but more or less of the peoples there run "illegal" dishes to receive satellite TV, radio and / or IP communication. I'm from the former GDR (DDR) and im shure that our former government (if it still exist) would tried to "control" or "block" IP communication at all and "effective as possible" but - as i remember - they wasn't able to control any communication (even if electronical communication was accessible by only a few geeks or freaks). Most spreaden "international communication" the peoples got was the western broadcast media (i.e. western german TV which was "not allowed" to see/show). It was not possible to block or even disturb it over longer times and larger areas for them - they tried it often enough. But, a country specific network adressing will give such regimes or governments new internationally "approved" policies to control national communication on a new level - possibly with "full" legislation by the highest international communities like the UN. Cheers, Niels.

1 0

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

01 Mar '10

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

8 10

AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Niels Dettenbach 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

Dear all here, i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies. My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users. ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts. Just my two cents... Cheers, Niels. Btw: sorry for my bad english... --- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com

13 13

AW: Re: AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Niels Dettenbach 26 Feb '10

26 Feb '10

...Just in addition: Handling over IP addressing / segmentation power to countries or even a country centric addressing policy will damage the former function of IP as a international / global "tool of democracy". If countries have direct or indirect control over IP segments they are able to "cut" or "block" IP segments countrywide which they see i.e. "abusive" to their political interests. As many Tier-1 carriers are using the IRs public ressources to filter their routes / traffic - this could bring up new (or even old) political interests within countries to "control" IP within their own countries. I see here many different negative impacts into rights like the freedom of speech. As a example: Political active groups or news agencies which still has outsourced their domain names have to outsource their IPs too (at least if they will find IPs within another accepting country)... Cheers, Niels.

1 0

[ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Axel Pawlik 25 Feb '10

25 Feb '10

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(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

[ncc-announce] Be Heard! APNIC Community Consultation Next Week
by RIPE NCC 24 Feb '10

24 Feb '10

Dear Colleagues, Internet address management may be on the brink of change. The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) is studying the creation of an alternative International Internet Registry model to operate in parallel to the existing RIR model. In collaboration with the NRO, APNIC is hosting a special session at APNIC 29 / APRICOT 2010 to give the global Internet community an opportunity to discuss the issues and ramifications of the alternative model proposed by the ITU. APNIC invites all Members of the global Internet Community to participate at: IPv6 Address Management and ITU - Is an "additional parallel structure" required? Where: APNIC 29, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia When: 14:00 - 15:30 (UTC +8), Wednesday, 3 March 2010 APNIC is an ITU-D sector Member and will attend the ITU IPv6 Working Group meeting in March that has been commissioned to study this issue in depth. APNIC will be reporting feedback from our Consultation to ensure community feedback is heard. Topics of discussion -------------------- 1. Where is the demand for this alternative system coming from? Would competition between IP address management systems bring any benefits to current and future Internet stakeholders? 2. Is it realistic to expect the policies of an alternative model as proposed by the ITU, to be consistent with RIR policies? Would the possibility of nationalized addressing systems lead to divergent policy systems? What would be the risks to the Internet of divergent policy environments? 3. If the ITU were to become an Internet registry, how would the ITU model affect the existing RIR model of open, bottom-up, and consensus-driven policy-making? More detailed information is available on: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/program/consultation How can you participate? ------------------------ Onsite ------ APNIC 29, Conference Hall 2, Kuala Lumpur Convention Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Remotely -------- Remote participants can watch via webcasting and can ask questions and make comments for the record via Jabber Chat. These tools can be adjusted to accommodate low bandwidth. Submissions ----------- APNIC is accepting written submissions. Please post your submission, identifying your name and affiliation and your comments on any or all of three discussion topics as well as general comments to: ipv6(a)apnic.net More Information ---------------- For more information on remote participation, visit: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/remote For more information on the APNIC 29 program, visit: http://meetings.apnic.net/29 For further assistance, contact: helpdesk(a)apnic.net APNIC Secretariat Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD http://www.apnic.net

1 0