[governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management

[McTim]

Hi Acharya,

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that India's strategy in Proposal 98 is not well thought out.
> However, I think India's concerns stem from the following:
>
> 1) IP addresses are not equitably distributed in the Asia Pacific region.
> The skewed allocation is reflected in the statistics that Eastern Asia holds
> 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia (including India) holds
> only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses.


Yes, it may stem from this, but IP addresses aren't allocated by
sub-region, but rather by network operators who show need for those
resources.

Indian entities have more than enough IP addresses at their disposal,
as do all others across the globe, they just need to implement IPv6 as
crying over the spilt milk of IPv4 isn't a useful exercise.

>
> 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably
> captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the
> APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of the
> IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, the
> member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then the
> member has 32 votes.  Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation of
> IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in
> APNIC EC elections.

People who run for the APNIC (or any RIR Board) do NOT represent their
nation state.  They do it to help the Internet develop in their region
and globally.


 Notably, India has had just one representative (for one
> year) on the APNIC EC in the past decade. Additionally, while this system of
> proportional voting creates a bias in favour of incumbent members who have
> grandfathered large IP holdings, the system penalises those members who are
> using IP addresses efficiently (for example by using Network Address
> Translation) and also penalises the community that is yet to connect to the
> Internet or has connected to the Internet late.
>
> 3) There are two options for redistribution of IP addresses.


Actually there is no "option" for redistribution of IPv4 addresses.
Are yoou really going to ask the entire planet to renumber their
networks?


 The first is to
> go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The second
> is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India seems to
> have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path, which
> would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents. Further,
> APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I doubt
> any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted.


It is the SIG Chairs in the APNIC region who administer the PDP, so
the EC doesn't have much to do with actual policy making besides
endorsing that the PDP was followed.  of course as individuals, they
can be involved, but in a multi-equal stakeholder system, they have no
more sway than any other individual.

I don't believe that APNIC elections are subject to the PDP, though I
may be wrong.  Normally it is the bylaws of the RIR that set election
policy.

>
> 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a
> proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was
> accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a
> conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of
> APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with a
> SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An obvious
> corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be enhanced
> accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any
> discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA transition
> plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of
> representativeness in my opinion.

By "Enhanced accountability" you mean not accountable to the people
who hold the resources in the region?



>
> While I feel that India's concerns are genuine, I also feel the path adopted
> is incorrect. If this proposal goes through as is, it can fragment the
> Internet through three routes: First, through alternate (non-IETF) standards
> emerging (from ITU) to address security concerns that are not inter-operable
> with existing standards;

I doubt there would be many network operators willing to take steps to
implement non-interoperable standards!


 Second, through a broken non-unique allocation of
> IP addresses where ITU and RIRs allocate IP addresses in parallel; Third,
> through an alternate root zone emerging to address the names part of
> Proposal 98.


Neither of which has a snowball's chance of success.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t