[ppml] Provider Independence???

[Owen DeLong]

The ITU position only wins if a large quantity of someones allow the ITU to
usurp some level of authority over the internet.  I think that is not as
likely as some would like to believe.

If it is that likely, then, we deserve the ITU as just punishment for our
failure to act in the best interests of the community.

Owen


--On Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:32 PM +0000 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 
wrote:

>> >> but what happens if a ISP don't want to accept the peering conditions
>> >> of the other ISPs in the region, what happens then?
>> >
>> > Then they don't use geo addresses.
>>
>> i am really not following...
>
> Geo addresses are just ordinary IPv6 addresses that
> work the same as any other IPv6 addresses. They differ
> from the current IPv6 addresses in only two ways. One
> is that they come from a well-known prefix so that
> anyone who chooses to can apply different policies
> to these addresses. The other difference is that the
> RIRs allocate these addresses according to a geographical
> hierarchy and pass on the requirement to XPs to maintain
> this geographical hierarchy.
>
> This means that the allocation to an endpoint does not
> come from their provider. It is provider independent.
> Instead, the allocation comes from the local exchange
> point operator. At this point, these addresses are
> usable through any provider connected to the XP
> and the routing announcements for these addresses
> can be aggregated globally to a very small number
> of entries in the so-called global routing table.
>
> This doesn't prevent anyone from continuing to
> use provider allocated IPv6 addresses in the same
> way that they are used in the v4 Internet.
>
> The ITU can make credible arguments that the
> existing random allocation of IPv4 addresses
> will not scale in IPv6 and therefore an alternative
> is needed. If the Internet community does not
> provide some type of geographic addressing that
> as an alternative to the ITU's proposal, then
> the ITU's position can easily win by default.
> We can no longer ignore the phone network because
> in the 21st century, the Internet *IS* the phone
> network. I disagree with the ITU position.
>
> --Michael Dillon



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20041209/1c38e0d9/attachment.sig>