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
