Sunday, February 26th 2017
| Contact |
We have 131 guests online
IGF 2014: Istanbul
Submit a Proposal
2013 IGF: Bali
2012 IGF: Baku
2011 IGF: Nairobi
2010 IGF: Vilnius
2009 IGF: Sharm El Sheikh
2008 IGF: Hyderabad
2007 IGF: Rio de Janeiro
2006 IGF: Athens
Tools for Interaction
2013 Social Media hash tags
List of Proposed Workshops
Workshop Proposals 2010
Who controls Internet routing? Self-governance and security at the core of Internet operations
Routing among Internet service providers is a site of Internet governance that has not received much attention. Without effective and robust routing arrangements among thousands of Internet service providers there cannot be a globally connected internet. Although the topic is very technical, it is also a very important and interesting example of how Internet governance takes place in a relatively decentralized and informal manner. Up to now, routing arrangements have been loosely self-regulated by ISPs through a combination of adherence to BGP protocol standards, IP addressing policies, and operational policies implemented by ISPs. The Regional Internet Registries play an indirect role in governing routing arrangements through their address allocation and assignment policies, which are designed to encourage aggregation of routes, or by operating routing registries.
Several problems have emerged and as a result important changes in Internet routing governance are being proposed. One problem has been global propagation of false routes, such as when Pakistan’s attempt to block YouTube affected ISPs around the world; the recent modification of DNS root server information in transit from China is another example. There needs to be a wider dialogue about the diagnosis and appropriate response to these problems.
Some of the most important changes underway are related to security. Specifically, there is a growing dialogue about the use of filtering to block inaccurate route announcements and spam; new protocols are being developed for a secure BGP; and a new attempt to “secure” routing through the use of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) are being developed. Like DNSSEC, RPKI attempts to use digital certificates to authenticate the use of an IP address block and route announcements. Although the Internet Architecture Board has issued a statement supporting RPKI and a single, global root as a trust anchor, there is a strong debate within the technical community about the economic, operational, and governance implications of RPKI. This panel will explore those issues thoroughly, bringing in economic, policy and technical expertise.
Another key issue is the scalability of BGP and the problem of route aggregation. Some are concerned that as we move to IPv6 the larger address space will lead to even great stress on routing tables. Some have even proposed a major architectural change in the Internet in order to head off this problem. As IPv4 addresses become scarcer, there is pressure to use smaller and smaller address blocks. However, in order to reduce strain on routers, ISPs would like to filter out route announcements for smaller blocks. This economic tension between small operators on the Internet and larger ones also has policy implications. The broader issue is the scalability of BGP as we move to a dual, IPv4 – IPv6 world.
The workshop falls within the Critical Internet Resources (primary) and Security (secondary) themes.
Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your workshop fall under?
Critical Internet Resources
Have you organized an IGF workshop before?
If so, please provide the link to the report:
Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite:
- Danny McPherson, Internet Architecture Board, Arbor Networks
- Andrea Glorioso, Policy Officer, European Commission, DG Information Society and Media, Unit A3 (Internet; Network and Information Security)
- Brenden Kuerbis, Internet Governance Project
- John Curran, CEO, ARIN
- Dmitry Burkov, IBM, Russia, RIPE
- Yoshinobu Matsuzaki, IIJ
Burkov Dmitry (Mr.)
Curran John (Mr.)
Glorioso Andrea (Mr.)
Kuerbis Brenden (Mr.)
Matsuzaki Yoshinobu (Mr.)
McPherson Danny (Mr.)
Mueller Milton (Mr.)
Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups:
Internet Governance Project (IGP) – Civil society/Academia
Internet Governance Project
Joomla Professional Work
NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul (Mr), Consultant, Burundi
Souter David (Mr), ICT Development Associates, UK
Bollow Norbert (Mr), Self-employed consultant - Systems analyst and technologist – FOSS (Free and Open Source Software), Switzerland
Athens Preparatory Contributions
Copyright © 2005-2010 Internet Governance Forum. All Rights Reserved.