[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Dec 27 18:49:30 UTC 2013
On 28/12/2013 07:35, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [discuss-bounces at 1net.org] on behalf of Steve Crocker [steve at shinkuro.com]
>> 1. I think there is quite broad agreement that allocations
>> and use of IPv6 address should be unique, i.e. the same
>> address should not be allocated to two or more parties.
> That is indeed technical coordination, but there are actually important policy and governance issues embedded even in this issue.
> As an easy example, consider the question of whether the registries that keep execute and track of these allocations should be regional, local or national. Or what are the criteria for establishing a new RIR, if one chooses RIRs as the model.
> How one operationalizes the coordination process has political implications, which is why, e.g., some countries insist on setting up NIRs or why the ITU wanted to replace (or supplement) RIRs with "country Internet registries" (CIRs).
All of which ignores the fact that IP addresses are allocated, routed, and used
topologically, not geographically. Which means that all discussion of them in
terms of physical geography and national boundaries is completely pointless.
I understand that people brought up knowing about the E.164 numbering system
don't know this a priori, but it is amazing to me that after 15 years we are
still having to re-explain this elementary fact so often.
More information about the discuss