[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

[apnic-talk] Community Statement to ITU

Subject: [apnic-talk] Community Statement to ITU
From: James Spenceley
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:39:02 +0800
Dear All,

Please find the statement presented as the Community's position to the ITU at 
the "Community Consultation - IPv6 and ITU" session at APRICOT10 today.

Feel free to distribute more widely.

James Spenceley


IP address management is fundamental to ongoing Internet stability. Over the 
past decade the Internet has become fundamental to the world’s economy. The 
Internet is truly global. What happens in one part of the world affects the 
rest of the world. So changes in IP address management could affect billions of 
devices globally, irrespective of the country where they are located.

The importance of an open environment

The Internet has become what it is today because of the open, transparent, 
bottom-up process used to develop the Internet’s protocols and management 
policies. Everyone is encouraged to participate.

RIR decision making has no barriers to participation. Anyone, including 
government, can have their say. This is made transparent by public archives of 
the decision making process, including mailing lists, video, and meeting 

Risks of introducing a parallel address management system

The operational stability, security, and efficiency of the Internet relies on a 
single consistent address management framework. The introduction of "competing" 
address management systems is not desired by network operators, and carries the 
strong risk of fragmenting address management policies, of fragmenting the 
Internet itself, and of compromising the Internet’s security and stability.

Equitable Distribution

We note the equitable distribution of addresses is already in place in the 
current IPv6 management system and addresses are being deployed actively and 
effectively throughout the world at this time. Each RIR already has the same 
sized block to distribute to networks within their region.


1.     The proposal for a parallel address management system involves 
significant risks and therefore requires a clear problem statement, complete 
explanation of its details, and a thorough risk analysis of its consequence.  
The NAv6 paper satisfies none of these requirements. Therefore, the NAv6 
proposal, the paper itself cannot be considered as a substantial basis for 
discussion at the ITU IPv6 Group's work.

2.     Since concern about potential IPv6 exhaustion appears to be one of the 
fundamental concerns behind the ITU’s studies into IPv6, we suggest that the 
ITU conduct a study on this.

3.     We ask the ITU's IPv6 Group follow the example of the Internet community 
and the IGF process and make its documents and records available publicly, so 
that all Internet stakeholders can participate in deliberations which could 
have global ramifications. We ask ITU Member States and Sector Members to 
recall the Tunis Agenda’s call for a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet 
governance and call on the ITU to support the current multi-stakeholder system 
of address management.
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>