[bestbits] [governance] The decentralization of IP addresses

[Jefsey]

>At 18:23 28/11/2015, willi uebelherr wrote:
>>many thanks for your reference. For your constructive participation 
>>in this discussion.
>
>At 20:36 28/11/2015, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>Your texts are impossible to understand, and the little that is
>understandable is hopelessly confused. Your proposal is "not even
>false" (by which I mean it is not possible to make sense of it, and
>then to determine if it's true or false.)

Willi,

This being said, having been in charge for several years (1982/1986)
of the global DNIC based X.121 addressing implementation, I supported
10 years ago the ITU _investigation_ (it was not a proposition).

Why? Because we will necessarily move into a more open world once the
1986-2013 "status-quo" culture has progressively unfrozen through
experimentation and (now technically correct) "permissionless innovation".

The difference between the "ITU/RIRs" period and the post ICANN
leadership evolution should be the multiplication of registries
(continents, nations, RFC 6852 global communities, ISO/IEC 11179,
etc.) and types of numbering plans.

The same as 15 years ago they documented why new TLDs would spoil the
nets. At that time no one considered possibilities such as SixXS, nor
an RFC 6852 pleading for the technology to be driven by markets
economics, nor the IETF to consensually accepting to be bound to the
ICANN "global community" and subject to NTIA review.

Now, I suggest you at least read two RFCs:

1. RFC 1958 "architectural principles of the Internet".  Its first
section is named "Constat change". It starts stating: " In searching
for Internet architectural principles, we must remember that technical
change is continuous in the information technology  industry. The
Internet reflects this.  ... Principles that seemed inviolable a few
years ago are deprecated today. Principles that seem sacred today will
be deprecated tomorrow. The principle of constant change is perhaps
the only principle of the Internet that should survive indefinitely."

2. RFC 3439 states " The  implication for carrier IP networks then, is
that to be successful we must drive our architectures and designs
toward the simplest possible solutions."


jfc

>Am 28/11/2015 um 08:51 a.m. schrieb Paul Wilson:
>>For reference, here's an article on this topic, written 10 years ago in
>>response to an ITU proposal for geographic/nationalised management of
>>IPv6 address space.
>>
>>http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_geography_of_internet_addressing
>>
>>Paul.