[Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]

I didn't see this on NANOG yet, but it's caused a stir on the RIPE list. --- Begin Message --- Dear Colleagues, As you may be aware, the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) has convened an ITU IPv6 Group, the first meeting of which w

RE: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]

Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses? Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:03:01 +0100 From: awa...@tuenti.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: > Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to > allocate a large > pool of addresses? For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be a

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large pool of addresses? For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Depar

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

Subject: RE: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU?IPv6 Group] Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:47:57AM -0500 Quoting Brandon Kim (brandon@brandontek.com): > > > Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to > allo

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

> Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to > allocate a large > pool of addresses? ITU is trying to stay relevant and justify its existence, over the years they have been loosing their grip over telecom and networking standards. This last move to grab a chunk

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> >> On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: >> >>> Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying >>> to allocate a large >>> pool of addresses? >>

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

> For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State > Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing > lists to discuss these positions. In addition, if you work for a largish company, they probably have a regulatory department which may already

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

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:40 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote: > I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ? ZCZC well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong. I'll just sit on the fence: as an old radiocomms guy,

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Tom Vest wrote: On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a l

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

> From: gordon b slater > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:52:21 + > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:40 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ? > > ZCZC > > well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T > standards - maybe X.25 too though I

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

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:09 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Oh, and X.25 and X.509 are from an older organization that merged into > the ITU-T when it was created, the CCITT (International Telegraph > and Telephone Consultative Committee). It became the ITU-T in 1992. Yeah, CCITT - thanks for the jo

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote: > I must admit to total confusion over why they need to "grab" IPs from > the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of > band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed some v6 technical point > totally? The ITU Secretariat and a few

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

> well, from vague memory,  H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T > standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong. Some of the encoding stds are not that bad. The X series and colored books are from the CCITT era, that BTW given that they were "Recommendations" many phone com

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

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, David Conrad wrote: non-biased way). There are a couple of papers put out by the ITU (or perhaps more accurately, ITU-funded folks) that discuss this. If anyone cares, I can dig them up. Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things): http://ww

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

On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote: Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things): http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good end-of-week belly laugh should take a look at "Delayed Co

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

> Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things): > > http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx yeah, yeah, ITU still making noise with the Y Series docs and NGN (Next Generation Networks) framework. Jeluuu ITU, kind of you are 25+ years late ...

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote: >> Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things): >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx > > Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a g

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

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Nick Hilliard wrote: The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these documents is frightening. Indeed. A usern...@domain is as valid a VOIP ID as is a traditional telephone number. And country coded TLDs can be moved around the net more easily t

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

> The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these > documents is frightening. Are the ITU folks planning to manage IPv6 address space allocations the same way they number their documents (ie no more than 100 docs per subject on the Y series) ? ;-}

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

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem. One of the great things about IPv6's address space being mindbogglingly large is that there's plenty of it to experiment with. If the ITU wants an RIR-sized block to do RIR-like work, so what? If they wanted a /2 or /4 I'd be concerned, or if there w

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

> Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem. It breaks the existing regional allocation and policy development process model establishing a second source that will probably not just want to "allocate" but also develop a parallel policy that will most probably not be consistent or compatible wit

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

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:43:11 -0800 David Conrad wrote: > On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote: > > I must admit to total confusion over why they need to "grab" IPs > > from the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of > > band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed

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

>  Syria wants to roll the clock back. Not only Syria, some developed countries want to have 100% control of the "big switch" to turn the net off/on, if possible on a packet by packet basis. PTT = Prehistoric Telecommunications Technologies ... IMHO the most important driving factor behind all t

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

On 26/02/2010 22:13, David Conrad wrote: If you want to be really frightened, remember that the IPv4 free pool is going to be exhausted in something like 576 days. Given the lack of IPv6 deployment, the subsequent food fights that erupt as markets in IPv4 addresses are established are likely goi

RE: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]

> I believe the ITU intends to set themselves up as an alternative to > the RIRs with a large IANA allocation, if they can get it. > > --Michael Dillon Michael, But doesn't the IETF own the control of IPv6? Couldn't the ITU bypass IANA and get an allocation directly from them? -- Skeeve St

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote: >> Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things): >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx > > Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a

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

On Feb 26, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > I think that "PTT" is the operative token here, but for reasons having > nothing to do with competition. If all they wanted was competition, > the easy answer would be to set up more registries -- or registrars > -- not bounded by geogr

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

Nick Hilliard (nick) writes: > > And the politicians. Yes, they will erupt in hitherto unseen > outbursts of self-righteous indignation at the stupid internet > engineers who let this problem happen in the first place and who > made no provision whatsoever for viable alternatives, Um, no

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

>There is much political froth being stirred up here. I don't see what the big deal is. It was patently unfair not to give every country a one-digit country code like the US and Russia have. So they don't want to make the same mistake with IPv6. R's, John

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

> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:04:12 +0800 > From: Phil Regnauld > > Nick Hilliard (nick) writes: > > > > And the politicians. Yes, they will erupt in hitherto unseen > > outbursts of self-righteous indignation at the stupid internet > > engineers who let this problem happen in the first place and

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

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:20 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Let's face reality. We have met the enemy and he is us. (Apologies to > Walt Kelly.) We, the network engineers simply kept ignoring IPv6 for > years after it was available. Almost all operating systems have been > IPv6 capable for at least f

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

On 27/02/2010 06:20, Kevin Oberman wrote: > I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying > history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago > a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that > double and triple NAT was the way of the futur

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

On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote: > I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government > regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have > had any effect, except maybe in Japan: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese governme

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

Long time ago (10+ years, Randy, others, correct me if I'm wrong) Japan had the vision and strategy for embracing IPv6 to assume a leadership position in the data telecommunications market. I remember how often during our (VRIO) IPO due diligence and later when the company became part of NTT, IPv6

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

On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote: >> I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government >> regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have >> had any effect, except maybe in Japan: >

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

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things: > > > > - tax incentivise ipv6 compliance > > - make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese > > gover

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

Tony Finch wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things: >>> >>> - tax incentivise ipv6 compliance >>> - make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with J

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

> I get the impression that in Japan the incentives led to real > deployment nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6. do not believe powerpoint. randy

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

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > nope.  in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets.  i > have ntt ftth.  it is v4 only.  i have to tunnel to iij to get v6. > > do not believe powerpoint. NTT also charges its (wholesale) IP transit customers a premium for v6 conn

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

On Mar 3, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Paul Wall wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i >> have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6. >> >> do not believe powerpoint. > > NTT also charges

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

> "Formation of a U.S. Delegation to the ITU Meeting on IPv6, March 15 and 16 > in Geneva" Will the State Department also provide hardware and ammo ? Regards Jorge

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

> I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying > history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago > a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that > double and triple NAT was the way of the future. It's only been over the > past two year

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

What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 Group in Geneva next week?

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

On Mar 11, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying >> history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago >> a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that >> double and triple NAT was the way o

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

None. On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join > their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6 > Group in Geneva next week? > > -- Sent from my mobile device Martin Hannigan

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

You can speak for yourself :) Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s) hosted by the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining them. - Jared On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > None. > > > > > On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Will

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

There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the meeting. All five RIRs were represented, as was ISOC. The notable absence was ICANN. Of course, this sample is by no means representative of the entire community, but it's more than "None." On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Mart

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

Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually. Regards, -drc On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the > meeting. All five RIRs were r

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

Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I think that the ITU invited the RIR's. Jared. Mailing lists don't count :) Best, Marty On 3/30/10, Richard Barnes wrote: > There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the > meeting. All five RIRs were repres

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

On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I > think that the ITU invited the RIR's. > > Jared. Mailing lists don't count :) When the invitation goes out to the list membership saying "Who is going to be at X and needs

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

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jared Mauch wrote: > You can speak for yourself :) > Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s) hosted by the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining them. Yep, I would agree that the "Internet technical communi

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

I'm not disagreeing. But see DRC's comment. Best, -M< On 3/30/10, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I >> think that the ITU invited the RIR's. >> >> Jared. Mailing lists don't count

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

That's odd. I was invited, by the US, but I'd scheduled CORE's technical meeting in Dortmund the following week, and there is only so much away time I can schedule while my wife is a 1L at Cornell Law, so I sent my regrets. The utility of going, as part of the US ISP delegation, and being excluded

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

Why isn't this on YouTube? j On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we > weren't allowed into the room.  Quite annoying, actually. > > Regards, > -drc -- --

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

On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we >> weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually. > Why isn't this on YouTube? You'd have to ask the ITU

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

I'm talking the ITU refusing ICANN entrance at the door.. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we >

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

Joly, It is just another 501(c)(3) incorporated in California. Just as the ITU is just another treaty organization. The basis for cooperation has to be mutual interest, not mere assertion of presence, and getting to maybe after a long, and not very cooperative history, isn't necessarily YouTube ma

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

On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we >>> weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.

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

Actually, it's 31,800 CHF == 30,170 USD. Plus, you have to get the approval of your local government even to submit an application. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> On M