[apnic-talk] Re: [ga] IETF, IANA and the Nics
stakeholders/users,
Yes you summarized this very nicely. The history speaks volumes for
itself.
I was not surprised after forwarding the IPv9 announcement to read of
Vint Cerf's "Bewilderment" when he apparently had not heard of the
IPv9 effort which had been ongoing for a number of years (10 yrs I
believe?)
See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/06/ipv9_hype_dismissed/
yet even this article from the UK's register was less than accurate in
its reporting in that it got all of it's information from the Nanog
list,
see: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06004.html
and conveniently left out relevant facts as well as mislead it's readers
regarding IPv9.
See: http://www.fitug.de/debate/0407/msg00039.html
http://www.cofradia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=10048
http://www.dvhardware.net/article2743.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200407/05/eng20040705_148509.html
http://forums.uniquehardware.ca/index.php?showtopic=1133
And the original story was broken by slasdot a much disliked news
service by many ICANN'ites See:
http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=1405
and http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/03/1324219
So along with many at APNIC, as well as the IETF are likely to be
concerned with IPv9 as it was not a IETF developed protocol and
could become competitive with IPv6 and IPv4 as well as perhaps
change the DNS landscape significantly in asia at least. Given that
China is the US's second largest trading partner and the US is running
a $60b deficit in trade with China and growing, it would of course
be worrisome to DOC/NTIA as well as ICANN if or when IPv9
proliferates. Hence the need is felt and displayed recently by Vint
and company to poo-poo it early on so as to blunt IPv9's impact
or potential impact.
Yet still we see that IPv6 is still not ready for prime time and not
gaining broad exceptance as has been discussed within the IETF
Address-Policy WG forum hosted by Ripe, see archives:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/index.html#archive
and http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB04-049.html
And still yet only two days after the IPv9 announcement from
China, LACNIC has also via their "politics" forum also been
bad mouthing IPv9 see: http://lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/
http://lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2004-July/000202.html
http://lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2004-July/000203.html
http://lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2004-July/000204.html
http://lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2004-July/000205.html
http://lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2004-July/000206.html
It therefor seems rather clear that the disinformation/smeer
campaign towards non-IETF developed protocols is still in earnest
and should reflect badly in the IETF as well as ICANN and the
IANA. One would hope that such activities in the manner in which
they are presented would be discontinued and apologies to the
hard working developers in China would be forthcoming publicly.
However I for one am not holding my breath waiting for that to
occur, naturally.
Hugh Dierker wrote:
> After a close look and some history lessons on the Internet and
> review of the "Juncket" mentality of ICANN and the aforementioned
> groups it really looks like an IVY LEAGUE club paid for by big IP
> interests.
>
> Who pays 400 bucks to attend a meeting in FIJI for APNIC? Why does
> Qualcomm sponsor the IETF meeting in San Diego? Where roomrates are
> astronomical in the height of the tourist season. And IANA is running
> off concepts from 1996 that suggest private IPs cannot compete or
> interface with public IPs.
>
> All of these scoff at China's IPv9 and the military's use of 6, 8 and
> 16. DotOrg crashes and microsoft writes its own ticket and settles
> with the DOJ. Still no dot for many deserving countries while dotIRAQ
> is held hostage.
>
> Now I see why the GA had to be closed down. But look at this nice list
> of places to write to.
> http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31
> Thank you JKHAN and our friends at atlarge.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827