[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
Hi,
I sat in during one of the meetings where this was originally
discussed and as I understand it the motivation was to encourage
some level of seriousness. Basically if the intent is there to
deploy IPv6 in a serious way, then please get an address. The
number 200 in that sense is somewhat arbritrary.
-c
ASO/AC
>>>>> "ki" == Kosuke Ito <kosuke@bugest.net> writes:
ki> Marcelo
ki> will you please tell me why the particular condition
ki> should be deleted instead of changing the number from 200
ki> to, say, 100 or 50?
ki> Or is there any conclusion in your discussion that the number
ki> other than Zero is meaning nothing?
ki> Kosuke
ki> marcelo bagnulo wrote:
>>> In this case, LACNIC will remove "200 for 2 years" rule with
>>> the reason IPv6 deployment in that region may be a bit slower
>>> than that in
>>> others.
>>
>>
>> As far as i understand, this is the motivation for the proposed change.
>>
>>
>>> If this is the difference and the reason, I would generally support
>>> this idea except one thing.
>>>
>>> If the reason is so, probably, I would like to suggest to set a time
>>> limit, say 2 years, for the new LACNIC policy and review it two
>>> years later,
>>> i.e. check IPv6 deployment status in LACNIC (and other regions)
>>> at that time
>>> and try to conform to the global-coordinated policy of that time
>>> unless the
>>> reason is still valid.
>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> thanks for your suggestion.
>>
>> marcelo
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Takashi Arano
>>>
>>> P.S.
>>> My very PERSONAL feeling is a bit pity to allow a new non-equivalent
>>> policy to be in effect in some region, though....
>>>
>>>
>>> At 14:04 04/01/20, 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.
>>>
>>>> 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@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@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
ki> --
ki> **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************
ki> Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group
ki> IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
ki> (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University)
ki> Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955
ki> Cell:+81-90-4605-4581
ki> mailto: kosuke@v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/
ki> Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
ki> _______________________________________________
ki> global-v6 mailing list
ki> global-v6@lists.apnic.net
ki> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
