- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
by Jeff Williams 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

Izumi and all, > Hi German and Anne, > > Thanks for the clarification. > > If the v6 policy is to be "co-ordinated" but not unique, I agree that > it is sufficient to announce the consensus in the global ML, but my > understanding is different. > > I thought that all the RIRs share a single policy document for IPv6 > and may create supplmentary documents/fringe policies to accomodate > minor differences. Based on this context, I assumed that any major > changes in the policy document requires consensus of the global > community, and not only within the region. I agree that your assumption regarding v6 or for that matter v4 regarding major allocation policy requires or should require a measured consensus by all of the participating stakeholders/users. > > > It is my understanding that the extent of regional differences > accomodated in the v6 policy had never been publicly discussed nor > stated. All I want to do is clarify this part, which was why I wished > to confirm whether there had been any agreement among the RIRs. Seems to me from following these ML's that the RIR's staff are making or attempting to make policy without any or adequate verifiable measured consensus of the participating stakeholders/users. I know our members in the different regions feel this way and I have ask for but not yet received any confirmation of a demonstrated measured consensus documentation from all regions.. > > > Let me emphasise once again that I am not against the idea of having a > regional policy. I also understand that the LACNIC community has good > reasons to implement the policy change. The policy change that the STAFF of LACNIC has been proportion is needed and/or desired has to my knowledge not reached a participating stakeholder/user measured consensus. > > > If either all RIRs, or the global community thinks it's fine to have a > regional policy and this has been clearly stated, I don't have any > problem about the LACNIC community implementing its own policy. It should and in our members view, that any or all regions that are seeking a regional policy regarding v6 or v4 allocations, must have the measured consensus of the stakeholder/users in those regions. To date none do that I am aware of or have been shown as legitimately documented. > > > Could I assume that we all agree about having regional policies in > IPv6? (I'd interpret this as not only apply to LACNIC but also to > other RIRs) No we don't all agree that there should be regional policies for v6 in as much as minimum allocations as far as I can tell... > > > Izumi > > From: Anne Lord <anne(a)apnic.net> > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:04:35 +1000 (EST) > > > > > Hi Izumi, Kosuke, > > > > > Could I confirm once again that this was the concious > > > decision(acknowledgement) made by all RIRs, having considered its > > > implications? > > > > I think German has replied to this question and I think the reply > > from the APNIC Secretariat will be similar. > > > > This was *not* part of a concious decision or acknowledgement made > > by all the RIRs. The decision flowed from the LACNIC community > > proposing and accepting the proposal as meeting a 'need' in their > > region. > > > > It is useful to observe that this policy is globally co-ordinated > > rather than a global policy: there were never any agreements by > > any RIR staff that there would be a single global policy. Actually > > APNIC EC has taken a decision to interpret one aspect of the policy > > in a way that differs from the other regions. See: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-policy-clarification.html > > > > I also see this and the LACNIC change as part of the normal globally > > co-ordinated policy development processes. My understanding is that > > the reason that LACNIC announced their consensus on the global-v6 policy > > discussion list, was in order to collect feedback from the other > > regions, and if necessary to re-asses the consensus decision. > > In other words, this was an attempt to look at the global context > > and to co-ordinate. > > > > Also please feel welcome to bring the proposed change, and this > > discussion to the agenda of the Policy SIG at the forthcoming > > APNIC Open Policy Meeting. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Anne > > -- > > > > > From: Kosuke Ito <kosuke(a)bugest.net> > > > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:08:36 +0900 > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, German and all > > > > > > > > I do understand that LACNIC community like to have their > > > > own "bootstrap" condition for deploying IPv6 in LACNIC > > > > region, but I do NOT like to have it with an open jaw > > > > condition, anyway. > > > > > > > > And, I would like to know other RIRs people's view on > > > > this matter, and how LACNIC consider the possible side > > > > effect to the global community once the LACNIC special > > > > condition is implemented. > > > > I believe that RIRs/NIRs community should have a single > > > > view (even though each region has a different need) on > > > > the global coordinated policy like the IPv6 policy which > > > > was built up on the large amount of efforts balancing many > > > > factors from the global point of view, since the IP address > > > > space is a global resourse shared accross the globe. > > > > And RIRs/NIRs, I personally believe, should set a allowance > > > > of changing the global policy to accomodate a local need. > > > > When it needs to change (locally), possible effects after > > > > the change should be discussed from the global resourse > > > > management point of view at the same time. > > > > > > > > I would not like to see avalanche multiplication on relaxing > > > > the allocation conditions initiating from LACNIC to all other > > > > regions... This is my worry. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Kosuke > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > German and all, > > > > > > > > > > I wonder when if ever LACNIC will be seeking advisory input from > > > > > the stakeholders/users in their region? I also wonder if LACNIC > > > > > does seek such input, that the desires and requirements of those > > > > > participating stakeholders/users will be adheared to in a responsible > > > > > and direct way? > > > > > > > > > > German Valdez wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Hi Izumi > > > > >> > > > > >>sorry for delay > > > > >> > > > > >>It is intention of the RIR to work in common policies, like the IPv6 > > > > one, > > > > >>when this is possible. > > > > >> > > > > >>Nevertheless, this IPv6 policy proposal is the result of a regional > > > > need. > > > > >>So far has accomplished all the step of our Policy Development Process. > > > > >> > > > > >>Even though common policies may work well they are not bindig for the > > > > RIR. > > > > >> > > > > >>We are aware that this proposal is broken a common policy. For this > > > > reason > > > > >>we are sharing this criteria with the Global IPv6 community. > > > > >> > > > > >>This 45 days period of comment (which ends at january 23rd) is not > > > > part of > > > > >>the policy development process, however is a faculty of LACNIC's > > > > Board to > > > > >>do this. The reason was to recieve more comments from the global > > > > community > > > > >>before the Board made a decision. > > > > >> > > > > >>Regards > > > > >> > > > > >>German Valdez > > > > >>Policy Liaison > > > > >>LACNIC > > > > >> > > > > >>At 12:07 AM 1/7/2004, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>It had been my understanding that IPv6 policy would be co-ordinated > > > > >>>among the RIRs, but this seems to imply a regional policy like IPv4. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>That's also one method of the policy process that's proved to work > > > > >>>well, but it should at least be a concious decision by the RIRs(or its > > > > >>>communities). > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Could someone from the RIRs share the position about this? > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Izumi > > > > >>>JPNIC > > > > >>> > > > > >>>From: German Valdez <german(a)lacnic.net> > > > > >>>Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > > > >>>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:16:29 -0300 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>FYI LACNIC is calling for last comments for new policies to be applied > > > > >>> > > > > >>>next > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>year. One of this policies is a new criteria for IPv6 Initial > > > > allocation. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>This proposal is the result of the analysis of the LACNIC IPv6 WG > > > > and the > > > > >>>>discussion held during our Open Policy Forum in The Havana, Cuba > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>You can review this proposal at http://lacnic.net/en/last-call.html > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>On december 9th we started a 45 days period for comments for these > > > > >>>>policies, including the IPv6 one. Comments will be received > > > > through our > > > > >>>>policy public list politicas(a)lacnic.net, subscription to this list > > > > is open > > > > >>>>at http://lacnic.net/en/lists.html. Any comments are welcomed. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Regards > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>German Valdez > > > > >>>>Policy Liaison > > > > >>>>LACNIC > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>>>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > >> > > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > =============================================================== > > > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > > > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > > > > E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > > > > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ > > > > Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group > > > > IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan > > > > (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) > > > > Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 > > > > Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 > > > > mailto: kosuke(a)v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ > > > > Lifetime e-mail: kosuke(a)stanfordalumni.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > global-v6 mailing list > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 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] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

2 4

test
by Jason Sohn 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is only for the intended recipient(s). The information contained in this correspondence is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby kindly notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately and permanently delete this transmission and any attachments. Thank you. No warranty is made that any attachment is free from viruses or other defects, and no responsibility for the consequences arising therefrom will be accepted.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Gert Doering 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Hi, On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:45:51PM +0100, Joao Damas wrote: > This goal could very well be achieved by keeping the addresses of the > servers you are already using and migrating all other active IP's out > of the /24 that contains the address you want to "anycast". After all, > none of the root servers that are anycasting today have renumbered (one > that is not anycasting today will renumber soon because they can't > apply what I just described, which was unfortunate). For the root servers, this is a viable approach (as you can't easily change their IP address). I'm not sure how useful this approach would be for a typical ccTLD that hosts their existing name servers in the PA address block of some hosting provider. > The problem is then with obtaining a /24 for each anycasted site, not > for the service IP but for the "management" IP, something that allows > you to uniquely identify the different incarnations of the the same IP, > geographically distributed and only accessible through networks other > than your own (for the operator of the anycast service, anycast is > indeed different from multi-homing). > Depending on the requirements for independence (in its various > aspects), you may use an IP inside someone else's PA block for that, if > you buy hosting from them, for instance, or you may need to ask for a > separate /24. > It is this last part that may pose a problem within current RIPE > policies. This specific solution (a separate /24 per anycast *instance*) would indeed *also* be a problem under the current policy, but this can be solved - as you suggested - by going for "local" PA addresses. The problem is really the anycast space - you need a routeable /24 (as far as anybody can promise "routeability") for a single host, and the current PI policy won't give you that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 58081 (57882) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
by Jeff Williams 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Anne and all, Anne Lord wrote: > Hi Izumi, Kosuke, > > > Could I confirm once again that this was the concious > > decision(acknowledgement) made by all RIRs, having considered its > > implications? > > I think German has replied to this question and I think the reply > from the APNIC Secretariat will be similar. I did not see Germans answer to this question nor to mine I ask him below on this thread. I also checked the archives and also cannot find his answer. The APNIC Secretariat's answer was indirect and cryptic in nature as it does not reflect the needs of the stakeholders/users of the regions community that can be demonstrated. I did request some evidence of such demonstrated/measured consensus, of the secretariat, but after two days, none has been forthcoming... > > > This was *not* part of a concious decision or acknowledgement made > by all the RIRs. The decision flowed from the LACNIC community > proposing and accepting the proposal as meeting a 'need' in their > region. > > It is useful to observe that this policy is globally co-ordinated > rather than a global policy: there were never any agreements by > any RIR staff that there would be a single global policy. Actually > APNIC EC has taken a decision to interpret one aspect of the policy > in a way that differs from the other regions. See: > > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-policy-clarification.html Ah yes well as has already been observed and recently discussed, this "Clarification" has been refuted... > > > I also see this and the LACNIC change as part of the normal globally > co-ordinated policy development processes. My understanding is that > the reason that LACNIC announced their consensus on the global-v6 policy > discussion list, was in order to collect feedback from the other > regions, and if necessary to re-asses the consensus decision. > In other words, this was an attempt to look at the global context > and to co-ordinate. It is almost always a wise idea to co-ordinate between and with any or all regions. However one ML for doing so is not shown to be adequate for accomplishing said co-ordination... > > > Also please feel welcome to bring the proposed change, and this > discussion to the agenda of the Policy SIG at the forthcoming > APNIC Open Policy Meeting. > > Best wishes, > > Anne > -- > > > From: Kosuke Ito <kosuke(a)bugest.net> > > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:08:36 +0900 > > > > > > > > Hi, German and all > > > > > > I do understand that LACNIC community like to have their > > > own "bootstrap" condition for deploying IPv6 in LACNIC > > > region, but I do NOT like to have it with an open jaw > > > condition, anyway. > > > > > > And, I would like to know other RIRs people's view on > > > this matter, and how LACNIC consider the possible side > > > effect to the global community once the LACNIC special > > > condition is implemented. > > > I believe that RIRs/NIRs community should have a single > > > view (even though each region has a different need) on > > > the global coordinated policy like the IPv6 policy which > > > was built up on the large amount of efforts balancing many > > > factors from the global point of view, since the IP address > > > space is a global resourse shared accross the globe. > > > And RIRs/NIRs, I personally believe, should set a allowance > > > of changing the global policy to accomodate a local need. > > > When it needs to change (locally), possible effects after > > > the change should be discussed from the global resourse > > > management point of view at the same time. > > > > > > I would not like to see avalanche multiplication on relaxing > > > the allocation conditions initiating from LACNIC to all other > > > regions... This is my worry. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Kosuke > > > > > > > > > Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > German and all, > > > > > > > > I wonder when if ever LACNIC will be seeking advisory input from > > > > the stakeholders/users in their region? I also wonder if LACNIC > > > > does seek such input, that the desires and requirements of those > > > > participating stakeholders/users will be adheared to in a responsible > > > > and direct way? > > > > > > > > German Valdez wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Hi Izumi > > > >> > > > >>sorry for delay > > > >> > > > >>It is intention of the RIR to work in common policies, like the IPv6 > > > one, > > > >>when this is possible. > > > >> > > > >>Nevertheless, this IPv6 policy proposal is the result of a regional > > > need. > > > >>So far has accomplished all the step of our Policy Development Process. > > > >> > > > >>Even though common policies may work well they are not bindig for the > > > RIR. > > > >> > > > >>We are aware that this proposal is broken a common policy. For this > > > reason > > > >>we are sharing this criteria with the Global IPv6 community. > > > >> > > > >>This 45 days period of comment (which ends at january 23rd) is not > > > part of > > > >>the policy development process, however is a faculty of LACNIC's > > > Board to > > > >>do this. The reason was to recieve more comments from the global > > > community > > > >>before the Board made a decision. > > > >> > > > >>Regards > > > >> > > > >>German Valdez > > > >>Policy Liaison > > > >>LACNIC > > > >> > > > >>At 12:07 AM 1/7/2004, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>It had been my understanding that IPv6 policy would be co-ordinated > > > >>>among the RIRs, but this seems to imply a regional policy like IPv4. > > > >>> > > > >>>That's also one method of the policy process that's proved to work > > > >>>well, but it should at least be a concious decision by the RIRs(or its > > > >>>communities). > > > >>> > > > >>>Could someone from the RIRs share the position about this? > > > >>> > > > >>>Izumi > > > >>>JPNIC > > > >>> > > > >>>From: German Valdez <german(a)lacnic.net> > > > >>>Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > > >>>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:16:29 -0300 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>FYI LACNIC is calling for last comments for new policies to be applied > > > >>> > > > >>>next > > > >>> > > > >>>>year. One of this policies is a new criteria for IPv6 Initial > > > allocation. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>This proposal is the result of the analysis of the LACNIC IPv6 WG > > > and the > > > >>>>discussion held during our Open Policy Forum in The Havana, Cuba > > > >>>> > > > >>>>You can review this proposal at http://lacnic.net/en/last-call.html > > > >>>> > > > >>>>On december 9th we started a 45 days period for comments for these > > > >>>>policies, including the IPv6 one. Comments will be received > > > through our > > > >>>>policy public list politicas(a)lacnic.net, subscription to this list > > > is open > > > >>>>at http://lacnic.net/en/lists.html. Any comments are welcomed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Regards > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>German Valdez > > > >>>>Policy Liaison > > > >>>>LACNIC > > > >>>> > > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>>global-v6 mailing list > > > >>>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > >>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>global-v6 mailing list > > > >>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > >> > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > >>global-v6 mailing list > > > >>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > =============================================================== > > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > > > E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > > > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ > > > Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group > > > IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan > > > (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) > > > Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 > > > Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 > > > mailto: kosuke(a)v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ > > > Lifetime e-mail: kosuke(a)stanfordalumni.org > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > global-v6 mailing list > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > _______________________________________________ > global-v6 mailing list > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 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] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

1 0

Re: Joint policy? (was:RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
by Jeff Williams 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Marcelo and all, marcelo bagnulo wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I guess that your point is not strictly related with this particular IPv6 > policy proposal but in general about if policies should be common or not. > (so i changed the subject) Yes in part, this is the point I was trying to make and support from others comments/remarks. > > > IMHO not taking into account what ather regions are doing is clearly a > mistake (i don't think anyone thinks otherwise) Agreed. > > > OTOH, i am not sure that a joint policy should be the default option. > Different regions have very different realities and policies should be > adapted to this realities. Yes to a very small degree I agree. However in allocation minimums and maximums I and our members in all regions, do not agree. > > > Cooordination is required and so forums like this one to coordinate policies > and where people from other regions can give their opinion on other region's > policies are needed Agreed here strongly. However it again seems that sharing these discussions with other regions seems to be something some participants such as Brian have seemingly been not desiring to do... > > > So i guess that we should try to do joint policies when it is possible and > when a policy is suitable for all the regions, but i am not very confident > that this will be the case always Of course in some instances joint of global policies will not be adequate for some regions. However this should be the rare exception, not the norm. > > > Coming back to the IPv6 case... > > For this particular case of IPv6, i understand that several regions are > having problems whith the policy. > APNIC people have brought lot of issues about this policy to this list and > also a proposal to waive the 200 /48 assignments has been discussed in ARIN, > so perhaps there is possibility here for a joint policy. If we were to do > this, how do think we should continue? First we all should be sharing discussions on issue areas of common consideration. And from their ICANN should set or incorporate any such policy which the RIR's must conform to after of course, stakeholder/user input and considerations is based on a measured consensus... > > > Regards, marcelo > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: global-v6-admin(a)lists.apnic.net > > [mailto:global-v6-admin@lists.apnic.net]En nombre de Jeff Williams > > Enviado el: lunes, 19 de enero de 2004 12:16 > > Para: mbagnulo(a)ing.uc3m.es > > CC: Kosuke Ito; German Valdez; Izumi Okutani; global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; > > icann board address > > Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > > > > > Marcelo and all, > > > > The issue is not whether Lacnic has a great need now for > > IPv6 addresses or not, or wheater other other RIR's have their > > own minimum allocation policy. Rather the issue is should or should > > not any such allocation policy be uniform across all RIR's and > > how should that policy be determined. > > > > What is seemingly happening is history repeating itself again > > in that each > > region is jumping to a conclusion without consideration enough for > > the future and desiring to be far to restrictive due to special > > interests. We saw allot of this during Jon Postels tenure > > and it lead to a huge mess... > > > > marcelo bagnulo wrote: > > > > > Hi Kosuke, > > > > > > > I would not like to see avalanche multiplication on relaxing > > > > the allocation conditions initiating from LACNIC to all other > > > > regions... This is my worry. > > > > > > While i am not arguing whether or not having common policy is > > the right way > > > to go, I really don't see how this avalanche can be caused by the policy > > > proposed by lacnic. > > > I mean, this policy only applies to the lacnic region where the IPv6 > > > requests so far are measures in tens (a few tens i think), so i > > don't think > > > that an avalanche is likely in the region. Moreover, the proposed policy > > > requests that the LIR has to provide IPv6 services to customers > > physically > > > located _in_ the lacnic region. > > > > > > With respect to all other regions, rirs in these regions still have its > > > policy so, i don't see how this can affect them. > > > > > > the motivation for the lacnic policy proposal is that, as it has been > > > mentioned in this list, the community is not applying for IPv6 > > address space > > > becuase they feel they will not meet the 200 /48 allocations in > > the next 2 > > > years. Moreover, they are not planning to have them, so they > > know they don't > > > qualify for it. > > > > > > AFAIU, the goal of the current policy is to assign address > > space to people > > > that want to actually provide IPv6 services. > > > The proposed policy attempts to do that. The imposed condition does not > > > depends on the adoption of IPv6 in the internet, but in the > > efforts made by > > > the one who obtained the allocation to provide IPv6 services. > > So the policy > > > asks that in order to obtain an allocation, the LIR has to provide IPv6 > > > services to its customers in the region. IMHO this would enable > > obtaining an > > > address block to those who want to provide IPv6 but don't > > really think they > > > will reach the 200 customers in 2 years (which is considered to > > be the most > > > common case in the lacnic region so far) > > > > > > Regards, marcelo > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Kosuke > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > German and all, > > > > > > > > > > I wonder when if ever LACNIC will be seeking advisory input from > > > > > the stakeholders/users in their region? I also wonder if LACNIC > > > > > does seek such input, that the desires and requirements of those > > > > > participating stakeholders/users will be adheared to in a > > responsible > > > > > and direct way? > > > > > > > > > > German Valdez wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Hi Izumi > > > > >> > > > > >>sorry for delay > > > > >> > > > > >>It is intention of the RIR to work in common policies, > > like the IPv6 > > > > one, > > > > >>when this is possible. > > > > >> > > > > >>Nevertheless, this IPv6 policy proposal is the result of > > a regional > > > > need. > > > > >>So far has accomplished all the step of our Policy > > > > Development Process. > > > > >> > > > > >>Even though common policies may work well they are not > > bindig for the > > > > RIR. > > > > >> > > > > >>We are aware that this proposal is broken a common > > policy. For this > > > > reason > > > > >>we are sharing this criteria with the Global IPv6 community. > > > > >> > > > > >>This 45 days period of comment (which ends at january > > 23rd) is not > > > > part of > > > > >>the policy development process, however is a faculty of LACNIC's > > > > Board to > > > > >>do this. The reason was to recieve more comments from the global > > > > community > > > > >>before the Board made a decision. > > > > >> > > > > >>Regards > > > > >> > > > > >>German Valdez > > > > >>Policy Liaison > > > > >>LACNIC > > > > >> > > > > >>At 12:07 AM 1/7/2004, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>It had been my understanding that IPv6 policy would be > > co-ordinated > > > > >>>among the RIRs, but this seems to imply a regional > > policy like IPv4. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>That's also one method of the policy process that's > > proved to work > > > > >>>well, but it should at least be a concious decision by the > > > > RIRs(or its > > > > >>>communities). > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Could someone from the RIRs share the position about this? > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Izumi > > > > >>>JPNIC > > > > >>> > > > > >>>From: German Valdez <german(a)lacnic.net> > > > > >>>Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > > > >>>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:16:29 -0300 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>FYI LACNIC is calling for last comments for new policies to > > > > be applied > > > > >>> > > > > >>>next > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>year. One of this policies is a new criteria for IPv6 Initial > > > > allocation. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>This proposal is the result of the analysis of the > > LACNIC IPv6 WG > > > > and the > > > > >>>>discussion held during our Open Policy Forum in The Havana, Cuba > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>You can review this proposal at > > http://lacnic.net/en/last-call.html > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>On december 9th we started a 45 days period for > > comments for these > > > > >>>>policies, including the IPv6 one. Comments will be received > > > > through our > > > > >>>>policy public list politicas(a)lacnic.net, subscription > > to this list > > > > is open > > > > >>>>at http://lacnic.net/en/lists.html. Any comments are welcomed. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Regards > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>German Valdez > > > > >>>>Policy Liaison > > > > >>>>LACNIC > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>>>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > >> > > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > =============================================================== > > > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > > > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > > > > E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > > > > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ > > > > Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group > > > > IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan > > > > (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) > > > > Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 > > > > Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 > > > > mailto: kosuke(a)v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ > > > > Lifetime e-mail: kosuke(a)stanfordalumni.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > 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] > > =============================================================== > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > global-v6 mailing list > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > 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] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

>Yes, I know that it's a very special case, and it could be done by >a "swamp" (or a random PI) /24 just fine. But I'm very much in favour of >having official ways to do things that need doing - and I'm convinced >that this is a good thing to do. A "swamp" /24 gets through more legacy filters than a random PI /24. Therefore the policy should specify that these /24s come from the former class C range. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Andreas Bäß/Denic 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

Hello! In addition to the criteria that leaked out to list a few days ago I have added the technical problem that is solved by deploying anycast for DNS with a lower number of server names to the list of requirements to get an allocation. So the suggested policy would be: RIPE should be able to allocate a single /24 IPv4 and a /32 IPv6 address block for the operation of anycast DNS servers if: - the operator serves a TLD zone - the number of (planned?) nameservers would lead to a truncation of the authority/additional section in a DNS delegation response containing the NS RRset in [draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-00.txt 2.9] As far as DENIC is concerned we would love to see this policy in effect as our additional section is already truncated and we would need to remove names from the authority section to gain more space for V6 glues. But we think it is a good thing to keep the network diversity that we have. See you in Amsterdam Andreas Baess

2 1

Re: [hm-staff] RE: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

>No-one from the APNIC Secretariat has made any comments about the >proposed policy. The reference to APNIC occurred in a sentence by >Jeff Williams. Things got a bit confused from thereon.. Anyone who is involved in any area of Internet policymaking anywhere in the world, *MUST* be aware who Jeff Williams is and what he does. According to this URL, "Jeff Williams is a fake and an impostor". http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg00615.html He seems to like spending his time creating confusion and stirring up trouble for people working on Internet related policy. If you can read German there is a great article about him here http://www.wortfeld.de/2003/08/das_emailphantom Please don't take any of his comments seriously. --Michael Dillon

2 1

ARIN to allocate from 70.0.0.0/8
by Leslie Nobile 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

Hello- ARIN received the IPv4 address block 70.0.0.0/8 from the IANA on Jan. 15, 2004. In the near future, ARIN will begin making allocations from this new block. This will include allocations of /20 and shorter prefixes, according to ARIN's minimum allocation policy. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered IP blocks can be found under "CIDR Blocks" at: http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0

RE: [hm-staff] RE: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Michel Py 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

> Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com wrote: > Anyone who is involved in any area of Internet > policymaking anywhere in the world, *MUST* be aware > who Jeff Williams is and what he does. [snip] > Please don't take any of his comments seriously. Thank you.

1 0