nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:06:56 +0000
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
Current thread:
- Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy Davidson (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy Davidson (Mar 01)
- RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Arjan van der Oest (Mar 01)
- Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Jorge Amodio (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Arjan van der Oest (Mar 01)
- Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy Davidson (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Jon Morby | fido (Mar 01)