I didn't see this on NANOG yet, but it's caused a stir on the RIPE list.
[Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC PositionOn TheITU IPv6 Group.eml (7 KB)
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large
pool of addresses?
For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
- Jared
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large
pool of addresses?For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
I, for one, did not know this.
The State Department is a rather large organization. Can you provide a link or a reference to the appropriate way to do this ?
Regards
Marshall
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large
pool of addresses?
The ITU is sulking because noone cares about them anymore; everybody
just runs IP instead of being obedient Phone Company customers and
using E.164 numbers.
By becoming provider of IPv6 space the ITU hopes to restore the notion
of country code addresses and also to again become a power factor in
datacom.
It is no coincidence that this wacky idea centers around developing
countries; since one country -- one vote still is the norm for much ITU
work this is a way to move power distribution back from an economy
driven model (where actual usage and amount of money invested in
operations matter) to a national-state model where Internet-heavy
information economies like North Korea or Bangladesh have equal voting
rights as USA or Japan.
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large
pool of addresses?
ITU is trying to stay relevant and justify its existence, over the
years they have been loosing their grip over telecom and networking
standards.
This last move to grab a chunk of IPv6 address space and become a
registry does not have any valid justification and some of the reasons
they have been crying out load at the IGF and ICANN meetings, all
circle around ICANN's monopoly and USG control of some network
resources.
There is an "ecosystem" that grew up around these organizations where
too many people/corporations are milking from and everybody wants to
be in control of (or have a part of it) the cows.
I don't know if already happened but ethernet (local, metro, wide) and
TCP/IP are probably today the most deployed data communication
technologies, add VoIP, keep few of the encoding and mobile (for a
while) standards and I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ?
Cheers
Jorge
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large
pool of addresses?For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
I, for one, did not know this.
The State Department is a rather large organization. Can you provide a link or a reference to the appropriate way to do this ?
Regards
Marshall
Hi Marshall,
Contact Anne Jillson and she'll set you up.
Cheers,
TV
For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
In addition, if you work for a largish company, they probably have a
regulatory department which may already have someone involved in ITU
standardisation activities, or already involved with the State
Department, or involved with the FCC. So it would be a good idea to
hunt around internally (contact legal and ask them if they know of
anyone dealing with regulatory issues) and then liaise with that
person. In particular, if your employer is a telco, it is unlikely
that the regulatory liaison knows anything about the self-regulatory
RIR system, and maybe some education is in order.
I believe the ITU intends to set themselves up as an alternative to
the RIRs with a large IANA allocation, if they can get it.
--Michael Dillon
ZCZC
well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T
standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong.
I'll just sit on the fence: as an old radiocomms guy, I'd say ITU-_R_ is
still very relevant if you guys DON'T want to watch/listen N. Korean or
Bangladeshi TV/radio on your home Sat systems or car radios, to name a
couple of recently quoted countries 
But ITU-T? That's one for the VoIP guys to shout about.
de Gord
NNNN
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to allocate a large
pool of addresses?For those of you that are unaware, it is possible to contact the State Department to get involved with ITU activities and be added to their mailing lists to discuss these positions.
I, for one, did not know this.
The State Department is a rather large organization. Can you provide a link or a reference to the appropriate way to do this ?
Regards
MarshallHi Marshall,
Contact Anne Jillson and she'll set you up.
Cheers,
Dear Tom;
Thank you very much.
Is there a list of these mailing lists anywhere ?
Regards
Marshall
well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T
standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong.
Some of the encoding stds are not that bad. The X series and colored
books are from the CCITT era, that BTW given that they were
"Recommendations" many phone companies and equipment vendors didn't
give a squat and implemented them as they pleased, interoperability
was a challenge and sort of an art of the dark ages of
telecommunications.
I still remember getting my butt smoked trying to get a derivate
Spanish implementation of X.25 talking with the Turkish one.
ITU has nothing to do with managing Internet address and name space,
if they want to go back to the dark ages of networking they can build
their own network and use CLNP or RSCS ala BITNET.
Cheers
Jorge
I believe the ITU intends to set themselves up as an alternative to
the RIRs with a large IANA allocation, if they can get it.--Michael Dillon
Michael,
But doesn't the IETF own the control of IPv6? Couldn't the ITU bypass IANA and get an allocation directly from them?