[Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Previous message (by thread): [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Next message (by thread): [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Smales, Robert
Robert.Smales at cw.com
Fri Feb 26 11:27:27 CET 2010
Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom > Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE > NCC Position > On The ITU IPv6 Group > > > I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry > makes no sense. It just adds confusion and > administrative/juridical problems. > As for development in third world countries. I think the > current model is better adapted, since It's centered on > technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. > Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With > the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the > cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind > closed doors. > I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create > commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair > competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for > the end-users. > > Also there is no real reason behind the claim? > Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what > way is an establishment of an new register justified? > > BR. > > --Dennis Lundström > Adamo Europe S.L > > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > > > I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any > specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering > address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space > should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future > needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that > access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". > > > > Further, there are passages like this: > > " that it is in the public interest that IP-based > networks and other > > telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and > provide, at a > > minimum, the level of quality of service provided by > traditional networks, > > consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized > international > > standards, " > > > > > > This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain > relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. > > > > > > Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views > of anyone except for me. > > > > Adam Waite > > > > > > > > Niels Dettenbach wrote: > >> 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 > >> > >> ---- 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. > > > > ---- 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. > > ---- > 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. 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
- Previous message (by thread): [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Next message (by thread): [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]