[governance] For you as an Internet user what is a "Critical Internet resource"?

[McTim]

Karl,

On 10/4/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> McTim wrote:
>
>   I do understand route aggregation, I just don't understand what the
> > IGF has to do with it.
>
> IGF can, and perhaps ought to, have a lot to do with it.

exactly what? Your mail doesn't explain I'm afraid.

>
> In the area of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses there is a tension between some
> rather tough technical issues and some equally tough economic/social issues:
>

true dat

> On one hand we have the technical issues of squeezing routing tables
> into routers and disseminating the routing updates faster than the rate
> at which the net topology and connectivity changes (due to failures,
> maintenance, congestion, etc).
>
> On the other hand we have the demand for stable addresses and provider
> independent addresses:

I've never heard the term "stable" used, I think your talking about PA
allocations ( the numbering community calls them " PA") for "Provider
Aggregatable".

>  Stable addresses are desired because, despite
> assertions to the contrary, few organizations find the task of
> renumbering addresses to be pleasant or foolproof.

While it's true that renumbering is painful, this is an argument for
PI, because if an org. has a PI block they never need to renumber.

And provider
> independent addresses are desired to support multiple provider
> attachments to the net because single attachments, whether due to
> traffic loading, reliability demands, or the increasing imposition by
> providers on traffic flows, are being perceived as increasingly fragile.
>

While it's true that people want PI for multihoming, it's also true
that an org. can multihome with PA.

> The interplay of these issues will only increase with the deployment of
> mobile devices - mobile IP tending to be more consumptive of addresses
> than stationary IP - and with the increasing deployment of packet
> transport quality sensitive applications such as VoIP and IP/TV
> (registered trademark of Cisco).
>
> ICANN has effectively abandoned this field.  Yes, there is an Address
> Supporting Orgnization, but if one measures its life by the amount of
> activity, it lacks any vital signs.


Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html

and this:

http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html.

While it is true that there are few global policies to coordinate, the
ASO AC is alive and well.  It's the bottom upittyness of numbering
policy that makes the ASO appear dormant to outsiders, they only act
once a global policy has been agreed by regional communities.

>
> The RIRs, filling the policy vacuum left by ICANN, have done a pretty
> good job of trying to fill the gap.  In many regards the RIRs provide a
> mirror showing us that where ICANN has gone awry the RIRs have done it
> right.

ICANN has strengthened numbering policy creation, in concert with the
RIRs (acting as the NRO).  IMO ICANN hasn't gone awry at all here,
they have done the right thing.

>
> But the RIRs, even though nominally open to the outside, tend to be more
> the focus of provider and router vendor viewpoints than the opinion of
> end users.  Yes, there are users present who articulate their needs, but
> in the main they are not the strongest voices, and they tend to be
> people who tend to have a strong sympathy to the provider concerns.
>

If this was the case, we wouldn't have PI addressing at all!
Please read my mail of Oct. 2nd, to wit:

"These folk have the health and growth of the network foremost in mind when
discussing policy, not necessarily the commercial interests of their
employers."

> The IGF has a role in at least twi regards:
>
>    1. Filling the vacuum at the global level that ICANN has created by
> its withdrawal from the field.

see above, ICANN has NOT withdrawn.

(In these matters it is important to
> distinguish ICANN from IANA.  The IANA folks, who should always be
> distinguished from ICANN, are still probably the best instrumentality
> and kernel around which to structure a global IP address policy.)

They are smart folk, I'll give you that, but the reality is they take
their marching
orders from ICANN, who in turn are instructed by the ASO.  IANA folk
do however actively engage in global and Regional policy discussions.

>
>    2. Assisting the RIRs become more synoptic.  I don't know how that
> ought to be done except that it ought to be an addition to, not a
> replacement for, the current RIR processes.

The RIRs themselves have a global viewpoint, IMO the IGF should look
to the "enhanced cooperation" started long before WSIS by the RIRs.  I
don't see how the IGF can help them become more synoptic.  Perhaps you
can be more specific.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance