Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
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
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? Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-) -- 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.
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.
Arjan van der Oest wrote:
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.
This presumes that competition that results in providing services more attractive (Not necessarily just lower monetary cost) to those applying for IP addresses is a good thing - I would argue very strongly that in fact this is something to be avoided. I can think of a few situations where the efforts of RIPE policy groups would be thwarted by having to "compete" with another IR. In particular, aggregation, accountability (RIPE 2007-01!) and address space preservation policies would all come under pressure from competition if the ITU or another body operated a more lax policy than the existing RIRs. (Presumably, other RIRs would be similarly affected, but I am not particularly well versed about other RIRs policies) I think we have to be careful here to avoid Hardin's "Tragedy of the commons" where the needs of the individuals is put above the needs of the whole. The current system, which is heavily influenced by Service Providers who are the primary stakeholders both commercially and technically in this works well. It's not ideal - one of my pet gripes is that the PI Address Space system often gets overlooked as end users that require SP independence have little voice, plus there's an obvious problem with developing nations coming late to the party and getting a smaller piece of the IPv4 pie but IPv6 hopefully fixes that anyway. I still feel it's better than trying to arrange competition.
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@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@ripe.net; nanog@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@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. ==================================================================
On 01/03/2010, at 10:24 PM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
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
Are you really serious about that? The issues seem to me much bigger than competition though. I agree that competition is 'not a bad thing' and that conceptually, the ITU being its own global RIR doesn't really have much of a downside.... conceptually that is. The practicality is that they won't act like an RIR in the way the other RIR's conduct themselves. The RIR system is a bottom up policy driven system in a model that all RIR's are co-operative and work together to achieve the same goals. The ITU - being an RIR wouldn't satisfy what it seems to setting out trying to do. Making them an RIR under the current system seems pointless as they aren't giving off much of a 'team player' vibe... more a fanatical religious vibe.. They will just define their own policies - which in the end may have an actual realised negative impact on the routing system - the details of which are for a different discussion. Given that the ITU, like the RIR, are a member driven system.... that to me suggests that there are specific members who are pushing for this... I've heard 'Syria' being tossed around as an agitator in this... but that there are other supporters who are not happy with the US Government dominance/control of the process. So the question is... what do these members who are pushing the ITU to go down this path.... what do they want? Could it be as simple as looking at making these guys a Middle Eastern RIR? Would that satisfy most of the agitators? I've heard some commentary that it just might. RIPE might not like losing a region... but the ideologies of the middle east is in many ways very different to that of most European countries. Would the Middle East as an RIR in its own right behave as a respectable member of the RIR community? maybe... has anyone asked? This sort of compromise may be a better way of handling the situation. The big issue I think is that the RIR's saying 'our way is best' (whether right or wrong) is no different to the ITU thinking the same from their perspective. In a normal situation we'd look at the merits of both proposals and decide whose best. But the RIR system has been running for a long time... and 'not badly' for the most part.... so why do we really need to change anything? Really.. if there were MASSIVE problems with the RIR system, the members would have kicked some ass a long time ago. One thing is... I guess since the US 'grew' the internet, and with some massive corporations having more space than some countries... the concerns of the ITU smaller members 'will be get screwed again may be justified... or if at least - reasonable.... something to at least take into count. Perhaps if a particular country is wanting more control over resources, setting up an NIR (as under the APNIC NIR style), is the path I would suggest they go... into a pre-defined, functioning, fair system. The countries are likely to have just as much, if not more involvement how things work, and get any resources they can justify. If any Joe can walk off the street and make a policy proposal... then why can't a disenfranchised country - with much more resources - get involved? ...Skeeve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
Skeeve wrote:
Are you really serious about that? The issues seem to me much bigger than competition though.
Yes sir, in theory/conceptually.
The ITU - being an RIR wouldn't satisfy what it seems to setting out trying to do. Making them an RIR under the current system seems pointless as they aren't giving off much of a 'team player' vibe... more a fanatical religious vibe.. They will just define their own policies - which in the end may have an actual realised negative impact on the routing system - the details of which are for a different discussion.
Again: as long as they don't interfere with IANA and RIR's and assuming there is no aluminum hat conspiracy that tries to achieve world-domination-via-ipv6 I wish them all the best. If they wish to implement some ridiculous policies concerning the assignment of IPv6 space via the ITU, let them. The result will be that all the telco's and ISP's will continue to use the current RIR's and ITU will prove their existence is useless.
Given that the ITU, like the RIR, are a member driven system.... that to me suggests that there are specific members who are pushing for this... I've heard 'Syria' being tossed around as an agitator in this... but that there are other supporters who are not happy with the US Government dominance/control of the process.
Which I can imagine, without the urge to start a political discussion here :)
But the RIR system has been running for a long time... and 'not badly' for the most part.... so why do we really need to change anything?
Why are people so scared of change? It's not a bad thing...
Really.. if there were MASSIVE problems with the RIR system, the members would have kicked some ass a long time ago.
Imho there is no massive problem with the RIR system, although there is always room for improvement. Again, my only point is: allocating space to ITU may settle whatever worries they have. I'm just trying to point out that competition (and change) are not a bad thing and I'm reluctant to start seeking conspiracies about world domination via ipv6. Let's see what it is ITU is *really* trying to get done, let's chat about it and then let's see what is wise. With all respect to Sven Kamphuis, that is exactly the reaction I would not see as the best towards the UN and ITU. Just my 2 cents -- 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.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Arjan van der Oest Sent: 01 March 2010 16:21
Again, my only point is: allocating space to ITU may settle whatever worries they have. I'm just trying to point out that competition (and change) are not a bad thing and I'm reluctant to start seeking conspiracies about world domination via ipv6. Let's see what it is ITU is *really* trying to get done, let's chat about it and then let's see what is wise.
I see the RIRs as regulatory organisations. I tell my users that they have to justify their requests for IP space with properly completed RIPE-488s (OK, I will accept RIPE-381 or RIPE-315), even though most requests are within my assignment window, because 'it is the rules'. If you have competition between regulators, people will choose whichever one is most likely to give them what they want (kind of like the way anyone bringing a defamation action will choose to bring it in England if they can, rather than the US because English courts are much less sympathetic to free-speech than US courts). Thus, if APNIC is stricter than the ITU, people will apply for address space from the ITU rather than APNIC, if APNIC is less strict than the ITU, no one will apply for space from the ITU RIR. Competition between regulatory bodies is a bad thing. Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ
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
On 1 Mar 2010, at 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?
Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-)
Oh I don't know ... the whole concept leaves a nasty taste in my mouth ... :)
-- 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.
---- 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.
Regards, Jon Morby FidoNet Registration Services Ltd web: www.fido.net tel: +44 (0) 845 004 3050 fax: +44 (0) 845 004 3051
participants (8)
-
Andy Davidson -
Arjan van der Oest -
Jon Morby | fido -
Jorge Amodio -
Michiel Ettema -
Skeeve Stevens -
Smales, Robert -
Zoe O'Connell