[governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format

[Guru]

McTim,

"I think this is empirically false in terms of current policy and current
proposals for v4 exhaustion.  I think I have pointed out before that in the
current situation, Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific regions will have
IPv4 address space to distribute after the US and Eu registries run out of
v4 (at current allocation/assignment rates)." 

This is a correct statement if you believe that the current usage pattern
across these countries/continents will be stable beyond the short term and
is even_desirable_or_acceptable. 

However, if our goal is to build a "inclusive information society where all
people have access to knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and
peoples to achieve their full potential in improving their quality of life",
then it is reasonable to assume that people of Africa and Asia will also
need to have same 'levels' of participation in the information society as
those currently in US and EU have. Meaning that the usage of the Internet
will need to be similar across these geographies (in which case nearly 1/2
of the total addresses ought to be just from India and China!).  

A progressive and forward looking vision that we need to own and work for
would include enabling creation of the information society visualised in the
WSIS DOP. This also implies we work to set up proactive governance
structures that understand their responsibilities in this regard. 'Industry
led' governance structures could not be expected to deal with these larger
complex issues since these geographies do not offer sufficient 'incentives'.
Whereas the history of social movements suggests that change on a large
scale (including items like schooling), requires significant collaborative /
public efforts. IG will be an opportunity to innovate new structures and
processes for such collaborations across different groups in society.
Including the wider CS constituencies we spoke of sometime back on this
list.

This discussion has a parallel to the discussions on climate change/global
warming. While the US (or some in the USG) would like to compare the
absolute emissions of fossil fuel use of India, China and US, as the basis
for emission control; the developing countries have argued that this is not
fair and what we need to compare is per-capita emissions rather than
absolute emissions, since we do not aim to build a society where certain
countries/economies 'enjoy higher standards of living' and others condemned
to 'lower subsistence levels'. 

Regards,
Guru

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:37 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format

Ian,

2008/2/26 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
> Agreed, we need to look at this as co-existence. If TCP/IP networks 
> survive,
>  IPv4 and NATs are not going to go away via deployment of IPv6, or not 
> for  some years or decades. So we need to understand very carefully 
> what the  coexistence issues are and how they can be best dealt with.
>
>  Central to this are a range of immediate deployment issues. That 
> should be  the focus of anyone wanting to encourage IPv6 deployment.
>
>  We also need to look carefully at what co-existence means in practice.
>
>  ARCHITECTURE
>
>  Architecturally, we have moved from
>
>  IPv4+NATS or IPv6
>
>  to
>
>  IPv4+NATS+IPv6+dual-stack (with a strong probability of IPv6 NATS as
well).

+ lots of tunnels i suspect

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt

<snip>

>  This creates a series of public policy issues. Market or no market, 
> the  address poor are almost certain to be largely confined to LDCs

I think this is empirically false in terms of current policy and current
proposals for v4 exhaustion.  I think I have pointed out before that in the
current situation, Africa, Latin America and Asia Pacific regions will have
IPv4 address space to distribute after the US and Eu registries run out of
v4 (at current allocation/assignment rates).


 and/or those
>  least able to afford to purchase in an open market.

There is no open market yet, there may never be.

Tom Vest had some interesting insight on NANOG about this recently:

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06173.html

As the address rich
>  don't need to bother, there will be little in the way of hardware and  
> software to smooth widespread adoption. Clever solutions will arise 
> but they  are likely to be based on variations of NATs, not adoption 
> of IPv6. Either  way, connectivity is not good.

Have you tried to set up an IPv6 connection? It only takes a few minutes via
a tunnel broker, it's free, and there is no rocket surgery involved.

>
>  So yes, I believe we have to accept and understand co-existence. But 
> we also  have to understand that it may have social ramifications we 
> don't understand  yet.
>
>  I think that we have to realize that co-existence is not pretty, 
> which is  why there is a strong argument for transition.

>From my perpective, transition involves dual stack(co-existence).
I don't see why these terms mean 2 different things, one is part of the
other. I don't think you'll ever get a "flag day" transition, if that's what
you are after.

--
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

____________________________________________________________
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