[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
Hi Marcelo
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.
If LACNIC implemented this special condition for LACNIC
region, most likely I guess, communities in other regions
like to have the same kind of conditions in their own, and
the proposal to do so may come out in the coming meetings
respectively, since everyone likes to have a relaxed policy
always. Right?
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.
I do understand your motivation, but it should be done
very carefully, because your motivation applys to other
regions as well to some extent.
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)
There are many countries having the similar situation like yours
in APNIC region as well, I believe. If LACNIC allows to put off
this specific condition, then, many of ISPs who has not had an
IPv6 allocation yet in APNIC likes to have the same one in
APNIC. Many of ISPs even in Japan may welcome to have it, too.
Maybe same in RIPE-NCC, and in ARIN.
Regards,
Kosuke
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@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@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@lists.apnic.net
>>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>global-v6 mailing list
>>>global-v6@lists.apnic.net
>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>global-v6 mailing list
>>global-v6@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@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6@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@v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/
Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
global-v6@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@v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/
Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
