- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

[ncc-announce] Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Olivia Mijnals-Ruimwijk 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC invites you to register for one of our upcoming training courses: - The LIR Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to request Internet number resources and interact with the RIPE NCC. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/lir/outline.html - The Routing Registry Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to use the RIPE Database for routing. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/rr/outline.html - The IPv6 Training Course This course teaches LIRs about the need for IPv6 and includes basic information on how to plan your deployment. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ipv6/outline.html To see the location of upcoming courses and to register, please use the LIR Portal or complete the registration form on our website at: RIPE NCC Upcoming Courses List & Registration https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/training/course-list.html If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at <training(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

[ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Confirms Commitment to DNSSEC Deployment in the Root Zone
by Andrei Robachevsky 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

Dear Colleagues, On 1 December 2009, ICANN and VeriSign began to deploy DNSSEC across the root server system when they signed the root zone using DNSSEC. They noted that the signing would become public from January 2010, when the process of signing each of the 13 root servers in turn would begin. This process will continue until July 2010, when ICANN publishes the root zone trust anchor and root operators begin to serve the signed root zone with actual keys. On 15 December 2009, the root zone DNSSEC deployment team launched a website that provides information about DNSSEC for the root zone: http://www.root-dnssec.org/ The website is a repository for the documentation relating to the deployment of DNSSEC in the root zone, and it includes information such as technical status updates and the full timetable for the deployment of DNSSEC. The RIPE NCC, operator of K-root, confirms its commitment to support the ICANN/VeriSign initiative and coordinate with the other root zone server operators in the deployment of DNSSEC in the root zone. The RIPE NCC also provides data collection and measurements that allows monitoring of the effects the transition has on the overall performance of the root server system. This information is available on RIPE Labs at: http://labs.ripe.net/content/preparing-k-root-signed-root-zone Further details on the RIPE NCC's operation of K-root are available at: http://k.root-servers.org Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

[ncc-announce] 2009-08 Implementation: IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs
by Nathalie Trenaman 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2009-08,"IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 address space under the new policy. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html The updated "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html The following document has also been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-pi-support.html Regards, Nathalie Trenaman Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

[ncc-announce] Maintenance work on NCC services - 17/11/2009
by Ben O'Hara 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, On Tuesday, 17 November, between 18:00 and 21:00 (UTC), the RIPE NCC will carry out maintenance work on our infrastructure. During this period you may experience outages when trying to use the following services: - www.ripe.net We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. If you have any questions please contact: ops(a)ripe.net Kind regards, -- Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC

1 0