On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
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...
I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently non-internet-offering telco's?
Government departments/ministries? Even in the case of sector members, the folks who attend ITU generally are not the folks who attend RIR/NANOG meetings.
Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.
There are, of course, plusses and minuses to country based allocations. On the plus side, it makes geo-location easier. On the minus side, it makes geo-location easier. It would also likely increase the number of routing prefixes announced by multi-nationals (not that this matters all that much in the grand scheme of things). It may also greatly simplify a return to the settlements-based regime that was the norm before around 1996 or so. However, I suspect the biggest change is that the moves where address policy is made away from the folks who are directly impacted by that policy (ISPs) to governments/PTTs. Please read some of the contributions at http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx and determine for yourself whether you think they would make good policies.
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...
Why?
Because they are repressive?
Now let's stop folding tin hats.
It has been noted in the past that you're not necessarily paranoid if they really are out to get you. Regards, -drc