1 / 5

Analysis of ITU-T Proposal for National IPv6 Address Registries

Delve into the ITU-T's IPv6 proposal to allocate contiguous V6 blocks to nations, establish national registries, and the impact on global business models and routing capabilities. Explore the implications of creating competition regimes and address trading markets. Evaluate the balance between national interests and common network goals, and consider alternatives to enhance IPv6 deployment without compromising functionality and security.

rossm
Download Presentation

Analysis of ITU-T Proposal for National IPv6 Address Registries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A commentary on the ITU-Tproposal for nationaladdress registries for IPv6 Geoff Huston April 2005

  2. ITU-T IPv6 Proposal November 2004 • Allocate each nation a contiguous V6 address block • Establish national registries in each nation • Promote competition between the national registries and the RIRs • Allow LIRs / ISPs a choice of service entity between RIR and national registry

  3. Some Attributes and Assumptions • Addresses are a global resource • should be distributed between countries in a fair manner • Addresses are a public resource • allows national public policy processes to set national address distribution policies • Addresses are a critical resource • Establishes locally controlled address pools for each nation • Addresses are a network resource • Without addresses network services are difficult to support • Addresses are an infinite resource • There is enough address space to create 200 new registries with enough space for each such that all countries can agree of allocations

  4. Some Issues Allows for 200 different policy regimes and policy confusion • “Recommendations” to sovereign national entities is ineffectual as a network control mechanism Does not align to regional and global business models • Does a global enterprise need to deal with up to 200 different address sources? Has no visible relationship to known routing capabilities • Route fragmentation at an entirely new level Creates competition regimes based on policy dilution • Creates impetus for rapid consumption, hoarding and address trading markets Eliminates common interest in one network • Places short term sector interest well above common network interest Compromises any hope to enhance routing integrity and security • Eliminates hope for a robust and resilient trust hierarchy to support a viable secure network routing environment Creates further churn in perceptions of stability and viability of V6 • Increases barriers to business investment in V6 infrastructure and services

  5. Some Options Agree It’s a really good idea – go for it! Disagree It’s yet another really bad idea – go away! Discuss There are some valid assumptions here – but is there a way to do this that does not utterly destroy IPV6 at the same time?

More Related