[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Feb 26 17:52:34 EST 2010

On Feb 26, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> ...
> Note that the ITU proposal for CIRs does not propose to make them exclusive, but rather proposes that an ITU-mediated CIR be an additional option. If one supports competing ISPs, why not alternative address registries? One cannot argue against this option on the grounds that we don't have enough ipv6 addresses to make it viable; we do. One cannot argue against it on the grounds that it messes up the efficiency of routing, because new, RIR-sanctioned NIRs or new RIRs carved out of existing ones would have basically the same effects on routing. 

Milton - Is there an "ITU proposal" for CIRs?  I'm not certain that I've 
actually seen such a proposal, and while I'm aware of both your and the
NAV6 ITU-funded studies, neither appears to contain an actual ITU CIR 
proposal.  Could you point us to such a document, so that the community 
can review and actually assess the operational impacts of it?

> One can also try to question the need for this proposal (solution in search of a problem). There is merit in this argument, but the issue is not quite as simple as it may seem. Developing countries aware of the landrush for ipv4 addresses that took place in the early stages of the internet's development have a legitimate reason to worry about whether history will repeat itself. An inherent feature of needs-based allocations is that developed economies will be able to show "need" well before undeveloped ones. The ITU is basically arguing for a system of reservations that guarantees each nation-state a substantial chunk of address resources just in case that happens. Naturally enough, given its basis in an intergovernmental organization, the ITU considers nation-states the appropriate stewards for these reservations. 

Is it asserted that the current policies for IPv6 allocation will create
a similar situation as occurred for IPv4?  I believe that it was your own
paper ("Economic Factors in the Allocation of IPv6 Addresses") which quotes 
Thomas Narten indicating that we're on track to use 1% of the IPv6 space 
in the next 50 years, correct?

> If setting aside address block reservations were the ONLY price we had to pay to assuage these political concerns, I would say, "do it." But other prices could be extracted - as I explained above, linking ip address allocations to the nation state system so closely could have serious political and regulatory repercussions. That price is not worth paying. 

I'm not certain that your paper was as clear on these negative aspects of 
the approach as you state above ("That price is not worth paying"). In fact,
fact, your paper is a document exhibit to the ITU IPv6 workshop meeting 
<http://www.itu.int/md/T09-IPV6-100315/sum/en> and it states that the ITU
has a constructive role to play, assuming "that the ITU is allocated a /12
in the IPv6 address space to act as an alternative IP address registry" Is
there a more up to date version of the paper that we should be referencing?


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list