On 18/09/2012, at 4:55 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Thanks Holly, I thought I should share this for general discussion stemming from what you had raised earlier as I have formulated a few questions to enable us to critically think about some of the things and generate discussion. I will listen to the two sided economy,
[If the estimation that there will be somewhere around 3 billion users by 2016 and that judging from current internet traffic, volume will continue to increase in days to come, we wonder why the transitioning phase across the world is still slow.]
I have a few questions for discussion
*NATs* Network Address Translators (NATs) were meant to be short term "temporary solutions" whilst working out "complex far reaching solutions" [see: Egevang, K., and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)," RFC 1631<ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1631.txt>, May 1994. and Huston, G, "Anatomy: A Look Inside Network Address Translators". Huston talks about the advantages and disadvantages of NATs as he discusses its anatomy at length.
*Questions*
1. Why are carriers generally resistant to transitioning to IPv6 and prefer to deal with address shortages through NATs? This is the issue I was addressing 2. Is there a possibility that Carriers who in the advent of the Internet have been losing revenue (preference for VOIP over traditional telephony, mobile substitution etc) and have found that a growing revenue pool in content? [What are the possible drivers behind the ETNO Proposal?] I think it's pretty clear that. The point Geoff makes (particularly in the APrIGF session) is that it is the content providers making money 3. Is there are possibility that with IPv4 addresses, carriers know exactly what IPv4 addresses are doing, behaving and can "sell" (without our express permission) this information to Advertisers? [Imagine the Privacy issues - Australia, UK and France have called on Google to completely destroy their data or investigate its contents, see: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/311216,privacy-commissioner-orders-google-to-d...]; In the US, Google was recently fined US $22.5million for Apple Safari Tracking, this was a Privacy Settlement and the largest US FTC Penalty ever for violation of a Commission Order, see: http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/09/google-ftc-safari-tracking-22-5-million-fine/ Carriers know EXACTLY what they are doing 4. Are Network Operators and Content Providers fearful of the WCIT because they could potentially lose traditional revenues? The danger of WCIT is more about moving from a multi stakeholder, open set of processes to the ITU-T, and from a definition of telecommunications that is greatly expanded. But all of that is on the various posts, including our own site with all relevant documents
Holly
*Some Interesting Readings [shared earlier but consolidated for ease of reference]*
- Network Service Models and the Internet, his views published on his website this month, see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-09/telecommsandip.html - On the Content economy, his views published on his website in 2001, see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2001-06/2001-06-content.html - On Carriage v Content, his views published on his website in July, 2012, see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-07/carriagevcontent.html. He talks briefly about ITRs and ETNO proposal in relation to the ITRs - Anatomy: A Look Inside Network Address Translators, see: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_7-3/anatomy.h... _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org