[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): AW: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
adi.vaizovic at telinea.com
adi.vaizovic at telinea.com
Mon Mar 1 22:09:17 CET 2010
Do not agree with ITU proposal. Kindest regards, Adi Vaizovic, Telinea Quoting Arjan van der Oest <arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl>: > CB3ROB scribbled: > >> let the riots commence 2.0.... > > Oh dear oh dear... > >> 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? > >> If we allow them to go forward, this WILL result in a "per country" >> easy-to-filter internet in a few years when ipv6 is the only serious >> protocol left. > > /me hands CB3ROB some tinfoil and mumbles : "believers, start your > FOLDING!" > >> we only need to point out how easy it was for the DDR to simply route >> all phonecalls to "the west" through a room where people monitored >> telephone conversations, and this "country specific prefix" is just > what >> the ITU seems to want for the internet. > > 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. > >> 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? > >> now -we- can always move our office to some other country and take our > tax >> money to some other resort, not a biggie, but don't come complaining > to me >> when germany at some point uses this to build their own chinese bigass > >> golden firewall with flames coming out of its ass to make it faster. > > Sven, I think several less-democratic nations have already proven that > if they require total control of the internet within the boundaries of > their country (sic) they can and will implement this anyhow. They don't > require ITU nor the UN for this. They will just demand Cisco and Google > to implement it and the corporate chiefs will just answer "How soon?"... > >> methods available to isps/telcos to stop this: >> >> - point out to governments that -we- own the internet > > You don't 'own' the internet, at most you own the infra within your own > AS. At least you and others don't own my part of the internet :) > >> their economy runs >> over it as a "courtesy" and that we can send them back to the stoneage > at >> any time we like by simply dropping 'their' traffic. > > Now that is a very smart thing to say. Another reason for the UN to gain > total control... Go on, hand them more sticks. > >> (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of >> running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network > > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... > >> they need us, we don't need them > > If they install legislation that forbids anyone without a license to run > a telecommunications network of ANY kind, surely you need them, with or > without ITU and/or RIR's. > >> Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what has your country > ever >> done for you. > > Oh please Sven, let's not go there :) > >> we have the biggest stick in this matter. > > *bzzzz* Sorry, wrong again. The government ultimately draws the longest > straw. Always... If they want to, they will. > > Now let's stop folding tin hats. > > > -- > 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 at 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. >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): AW: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]