[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

[Barry Shein]

On April 18, 2014 at 17:02 ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
 > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 04:46:35PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
 > > Just make a policy like the smallest routable block is a /32 (IPv6)
 > > and you have to be able to justify it.
 > 
 > But this very statement imagines a fanciful world in which there is a
 > Routing Committee of the Universe who gets to make that policy.  There
 > isn't.

Exactly what I was doing. Imagining a world where all this nice
governance structure had failed and a few huge players such as large
telecoms have taken control and run it how they wish from a star
chamber.

That's roughly how international telephony is run, right? Maybe
through vehicles such as the ITU but it's big players banging out
settlement contracts etc and not really seeking the general public's
opinion.

 > _Inter_networking is, by definition, voluntary.  It cannot be
 > otherwise, because if it were that wouldn't be an _inter_net, but one
 > network.  So I am the only one who gets to decide what my routing
 > policies are, and what I will do for your packets.

Unless it annoys your upstream, or you're big enough to be a Tier-1
peer or thereabouts.

 > If you are right and Memory Death of the Router Universe is coming,
 > then the "policy" you are talking about might emerge as a BCP all on
 > its own.  
 > 
 > But if people want instead to create an Internet Routing Ruling Cabal
 > that makes these decisions, we just don't have the Internet any more,
 > because we go from permissionless innovation to supplication to the
 > Cabal.  I do not think it should become necessary to destroy the town
 > to save it.

With only a handful of companies controlling the wires...the last mile
service, the core, I sense more noblesse oblige than you do, perhaps.

And that will only continue so long as it works for the "noblesse".

I was just questioning the IPv6 transition being characterized as
outside of ICANN's purview and interest and, further, of no real
relevance to these governance and IANA transition dialogues.

I'm pointing out that we're at a much more delicate point in history
than many might appreciate.

We've almost run out of further IPv4 space allocations.

And IPv6 is still a work in progress with not all that much
penetration thus far.

A lot of the players who were expected to embrace IPv6 out of
necessity ran to CGN and similar. Maybe that's as it should be.

But there's probably trillions of dollars riding on this. It's
remarkably precarious. So I remarked.

 > Best regards,
 > 
 > A
 > 
 > -- 
 > Andrew Sullivan
 > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > discuss mailing list
 > discuss at 1net.org
 > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*