[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group

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 at 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20100301/5a76fa73/attachment.html>