[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Dec 27 23:50:06 UTC 2013

On Dec 27, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> It is also a policy decision involved in deciding that typology of the network would not attempt too align closer to geographic boundaries, at least in some instances.  It currently doesn't, and i would prefer it didn't, but it could.   Yes there would be implications on the routing and on the (re)assignment of ASes, but there could be better regional and national alignment over time if that was something we made it a policy to support.

Avri - 
 You are absolutely correct - there are numerous potential public policy objectives 
 that could result in requirements regarding the IPv6 registry structures and management;
 some are relatively simple and can be accommodated in the existing policy framework if
 they were made know to the RIR community (e.g. constraints on publicly identifiable data 
 handling) and some would have more colorful ramifications (e.g. if a government posed 
 a requirement for IP address prefix-based identification of users who are in-country.)

 Repeating over and over that IP address management is a "technical matter" not subject 
 to governments or policy doesn't actually change reality, nor does it build understanding 
 about what public policy objectives governments are trying to achieve.  It's quite likely 
 that each Internet communities will see view various objectives differently, but that's 
 no reason not to engage to gain a better understanding of what governments are trying to 
 achieve in order to fulfill their responsibilities.  If governments cannot (or will not)
 come forward to discuss their issues, it should not be the result of a lack of a fair and 
 open forum.


Disclaimer: My views alone.

More information about the discuss mailing list