That's odd. I was invited, by the US, but I'd scheduled CORE's
technical meeting in Dortmund the following week, and there is only so
much away time I can schedule while my wife is a 1L at Cornell Law, so
I sent my regrets.
The utility of going, as part of the US ISP delegation, and being
Why isn't this on YouTube?
j
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we
weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Regards,
-drc
--
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we
weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Why isn't this on YouTube?
You'd have
I'm talking the ITU refusing ICANN entrance at the door..
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:18 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva
Joly,
It is just another 501(c)(3) incorporated in California. Just as the
ITU is just another treaty organization. The basis for cooperation has
to be mutual interest, not mere assertion of presence, and getting to
maybe after a long, and not very cooperative history, isn't
necessarily YouTube
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:18 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we
weren't allowed into the room. Quite
Actually, it's 31,800 CHF == 30,170 USD.
Plus, you have to get the approval of your local government even to
submit an application.
http://www.itu.int/members/sectmem/Form.pdf
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:18 PM, David Conrad
You can speak for yourself :)
Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s) hosted by
the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining them.
- Jared
On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
None.
On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the
meeting. All five RIRs were represented, as was ISOC. The notable
absence was ICANN. Of course, this sample is by no means
representative of the entire community, but it's more than None.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM,
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we
weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the
meeting. All five RIRs were
Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I
think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
Jared. Mailing lists don't count :)
Best,
Marty
On 3/30/10, Richard Barnes richard.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the
meeting.
On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I
think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
Jared. Mailing lists don't count :)
When the invitation goes out to the list membership saying Who is going to be
at X and needs
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jared Mauch wrote:
You can speak for yourself :)
Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s)
hosted by the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining
them.
Yep, I would agree that the Internet technical
I'm not disagreeing. But see DRC's comment.
Best,
-M
On 3/30/10, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I
think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
Jared. Mailing lists
I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying
history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago
a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that
double and triple NAT was the way of the future. It's only been over the
past two years
What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join
their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6
Group in Geneva next week?
On Mar 11, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying
history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago
a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that
double and triple NAT was the way of the
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i
have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6.
do not believe powerpoint.
NTT also charges its (wholesale) IP transit customers a premium
On Mar 3, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i
have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6.
do not believe powerpoint.
NTT also
Formation of a U.S. Delegation to the ITU Meeting on IPv6, March 15 and 16
in Geneva
Will the State Department also provide hardware and ammo ?
Regards
Jorge
I get the impression that in Japan the incentives led to real
deployment
nope. in japan, there is still far more powerpoint than packets. i
have ntt ftth. it is v4 only. i have to tunnel to iij to get v6.
do not believe powerpoint.
randy
On 27/02/2010 06:20, Kevin Oberman wrote:
I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying
history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago
a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that
double and triple NAT was the way of the future.
On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote:
I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot stick) or government
regulations in the line of implement IPv6 before X/Y or else... have
had any effect, except maybe in Japan:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government
Long time ago (10+ years, Randy, others, correct me if I'm wrong)
Japan had the vision and strategy for embracing IPv6 to assume a
leadership position in the data telecommunications market.
I remember how often during our (VRIO) IPO due diligence and later
when the company became part of NTT,
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote:
I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot stick) or government
regulations in the line of implement IPv6 before X/Y or else... have
had any effect, except maybe in Japan:
Correct
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
- tax incentivise ipv6 compliance
- make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese
government
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
- tax incentivise ipv6 compliance
- make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese
I didn't see this on NANOG yet, but it's caused a stir on the RIPE list.
---BeginMessage---
Dear Colleagues,
As you may be aware, the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU)
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) has convened an ITU
IPv6 Group, the first meeting of which
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to
allocate a large
pool of addresses?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:03:01 +0100
From: awa...@tuenti.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The
ITU IPv6
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
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
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
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
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The
ITU?IPv6 Group] Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:47:57AM -0500 Quoting Brandon Kim
(brandon@brandontek.com):
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they are trying to
allocate a large
pool
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
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
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
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
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:40 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ?
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,
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Tom Vest wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Interesting, why is it causing quite a stir? Is it because they
are trying to allocate a
From: gordon b slater gordsla...@ieee.org
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:52:21 +
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:40 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ?
ZCZC
well, from vague memory, H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T
standards - maybe X.25 too
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
I must admit to total confusion over why they need to grab IPs from
the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of
band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed some v6 technical point
totally?
The ITU Secretariat and a few
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
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, David Conrad wrote:
non-biased way). There are a couple of papers put out by the ITU (or
perhaps more accurately, ITU-funded folks) that discuss this. If anyone
cares, I can dig them up.
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good
end-of-week belly laugh should take a look at Delayed
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx
yeah, yeah, ITU still making noise with the Y Series docs and NGN
(Next Generation Networks) framework.
Jeluuu ITU, kind of you are 25+ years late ...
On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these
documents is frightening.
Indeed. A usern...@domain is as valid a VOIP ID as is a traditional
telephone number. And country coded TLDs can be moved around the net more
easily
The pitiful level of misunderstanding displayed by the authors of these
documents is frightening.
Are the ITU folks planning to manage IPv6 address space allocations
the same way they number their documents (ie no more than 100 docs per
subject on the Y series) ?
;-}
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem. One of the great things
about IPv6's address space being mindbogglingly large is that there's
plenty of it to experiment with. If the ITU wants an RIR-sized block
to do RIR-like work, so what? If they wanted a /2 or /4 I'd be
concerned, or if there
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem.
It breaks the existing regional allocation and policy development
process model establishing a second source that will probably not just
want to allocate but also develop a parallel policy that will most
probably not be consistent or compatible with
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:43:11 -0800
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
I must admit to total confusion over why they need to grab IPs
from the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of
band-plans for IP space? Or
Syria wants to roll the clock back.
Not only Syria, some developed countries want to have 100% control of
the big switch to turn the net off/on, if possible on a packet by
packet basis.
PTT = Prehistoric Telecommunications Technologies ...
IMHO the most important driving factor behind all
On 26/02/2010 22:13, David Conrad wrote:
If you want to be really frightened, remember that the IPv4 free pool
is going to be exhausted in something like 576 days. Given the lack
of IPv6 deployment, the subsequent food fights that erupt as markets
in IPv4 addresses are established are likely
On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good
On Feb 26, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
I think that PTT is the operative token here, but for reasons having
nothing to do with competition. If all they wanted was competition,
the easy answer would be to set up more registries -- or registrars
-- not bounded by geography;
Nick Hilliard (nick) writes:
And the politicians. Yes, they will erupt in hitherto unseen
outbursts of self-righteous indignation at the stupid internet
engineers who let this problem happen in the first place and who
made no provision whatsoever for viable alternatives,
Um, not to
There is much political froth being stirred up here.
I don't see what the big deal is. It was patently unfair not to give
every country a one-digit country code like the US and Russia have.
So they don't want to make the same mistake with IPv6.
R's,
John
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:04:12 +0800
From: Phil Regnauld regna...@nsrc.org
Nick Hilliard (nick) writes:
And the politicians. Yes, they will erupt in hitherto unseen
outbursts of self-righteous indignation at the stupid internet
engineers who let this problem happen in the first
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:20 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Let's face reality. We have met the enemy and he is us. (Apologies to
Walt Kelly.) We, the network engineers simply kept ignoring IPv6 for
years after it was available. Almost all operating systems have been
IPv6 capable for at least five
57 matches
Mail list logo
