sig-policy September 2015

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

17 participants
12 discussions

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Sep '15

30 Sep '15

Dear Subscriber, This is the monthly reminder of subscription information for the sig-policy list, hosted at APNIC. For subscription information including how to un-subscribe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Thank you for participating in this discussion. Kind Regards, List administrator

1 0

Summary of Policy Proposals from ARIN
by George Odagi 30 Sep '15

30 Sep '15

Dear Community Members, This email presents a summary of the policy proposals currently in discussion and will be presented during the upcoming ARIN 36 meeting in Montréal, Québec: Eleven proposals under discussion, in chronological order: -------------------------------- - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html Would add another way for end users to qualify for IP space (minimum of 13 sites). - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_2.html Currently transfer recipients can become a transfer source only after a period of 12 months. Proposal would remove the 12-month restriction. - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_3.html Would remove 25% immediate use criteria. - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_4.html Would clarify that NRPM 8.2 is for ³Mergers, Acquisitions and Reorganizations². - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_5.html Would allow requests for use outside the ARIN region. - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_6.html Currently transfer recipients cannot claim out of region use, nor can they request space to be used outside the ARIN region. Out of region use and requests for space outside the ARIN region would be allowed. - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_7.html Would add another way for recipients in the ARIN region to qualify for an IPv4 transfer (show 50% use of all space within two years, with officer attestation). - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_8.html Would allow end users to create reassignment records. - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html Transfer recipients would not be required to demonstrate need. - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_10.html Would create a minimum reassignment size of /56. - Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_11.html Remove sections of the NRPM which were only affective until IPv4 pool exhaustion occurred. An overview of ARIN´s policy proposals can be found here: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Find more information about the ARIN Policy Development Process here: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Kind regards, George Odagi Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC e: godagi(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3191 f: +61 7 3858 3199 www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

Summary of Policy Proposals from LACNIC
by George Odagi 20 Sep '15

20 Sep '15

Dear Community Members, This email presents a summary of the policy proposals currently in discussion and will be presented during the upcoming LACNIC 25 meeting in Bogotá, Colombia: Six proposals under discussion, in chronological order: -------------------------------- - LAC-2015-1: Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC. https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2015-1?language=en This proposal seeks to trigger IPv4 transfers among members in the LACNIC region. - LAC-2015-2: Inter-RIR Transfers https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2015-2?language=en This proposal seeks to allow organizations to transfer IPv4 resources into LACNIC from another RIR. - LAC-2015-3: IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks. https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2015-3?language=en This proposal sets 2030 as the date of IPv4 exhaustion, and suggests that large IPv4 block users return 1/15 of their blocks each year. - LAC-2015-4: Resource Recovery Timeline https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2015-4?language=en This proposal seeks to reduce the period of time needed to recover Internet number resources that are not being "properly utilized" from 6 to 3 months. - LAC-2015-5: Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18 https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2015-5?language=en This proposal seeks to modify section 2.3.2.18, increasing the period of time required before an assigned block can be transfered to 3 years, from the one-year period currently in force. - LAC-2015-6: Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2015-6?language=en The proposal seeks to modify the text in sections 11.1 and 11.2, doubling the space assigned to Phase 2, from a /11 to a /10. An overview of LACNIC´s policy proposals can be found here: http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/politicas Find more information about the LACNIC Policy Development Process here: http://www.lacnic.net/web/lacnic/proceso-de-desarrollo-de-politicas Kind regards, George Odagi Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC e: godagi(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3191 f: +61 7 3858 3199 www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

The status of APNIC's IPv4 resources
by Masato Yamanishi 16 Sep '15

16 Sep '15

Dear Colleagues, In Jakarta, Geoff Huston presented the status of our IPv4 resources, in particular about exhaustion and transfer, and some participants asked to summarize and post it to the list for further discussion. Following is Chairs' summary of the presentation and discussion. 1. Status of APNIC Final /8 pool (103/8) - Will run out ~4-5 years 2. Status of IANA Recovered pool (non-103) - Will run out in next 7 months+ - IANA may allocate additional space in every 6 months - This pool will repeatedly ‘run-out’ as IANA delegates more space and it is distributed by APNIC - May need policy to deal with temporary exhaustion of the non-103 pool -> Close the door when exhausted or create the waiting list and put further applications to there? 3. Some address spaces in 103/8 were transferred within 12months since initial allocation - There is no policy to prohibit it while the Secretariat asks in review process While 3rd point was not included in SIG Chair report presented in AMM as the time was very limited, I would like to ask you consider this point also. It is very appreciated if you make a comment and discuss further. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC SIG Chair

6 10

Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration
by Masato Yamanishi 16 Sep '15

16 Sep '15

Dear colleagues Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting. The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for further consideration. Proposal details ---------------- This proposal seeks to require LIRs to register accurate filtering information, such as IPv4 port-range information and IPv6 assignment prefix size. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115 Regards Masato and Sumon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-115-v003: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: Ruri Hiromi hiromi(a)inetcore.com Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment information in more detail to specify user IP address. Without this information, operators cannot filter out specific address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering whole ISP's address range). For example: 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4 ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing technology with assignment of IP address and specified port range to their users. In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user. ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA 192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X minimum size is /32 2) address assignment size information in IPv6 The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP and its service estimation. Address assignment prefix size will be necessary. ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA 2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be filtered or not. The goal is providing more specific information to support these actions. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB. For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address entry. For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information for specific IPv6 address. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: - operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct assignment information base. - users who share same address space can be avoid to be including bulk filtering. Disadvantages: - registration rule will move to more strict manner. - strict watch and control in registration of database records. - additional record or option will be considered. - privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these records. 6. Impact on APNIC ------------------ This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB and appropriate changes in policy document or guidance to whois DB will be needed. Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed to set access privilege to the detailed information. Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed in Help message/Warning/Alert when whois DB has non-privileged access. Some kind of promotion cost might be needed in announcing. Need cooperation and support from members(ISPs). 7. Other Consideration ---------------------- For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is needed) For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands. Some ISP use IRR DB to notice their filter policy towards BGP community with "remarks" filed in aut-num record. Need more discussion among APNIC members on using whois DB versus IRR DB. Start a pilot project for research its demands and effectiveness in APNIC region. APNIC is a worthy body to lead this pilot project. There are some opinions that it is not suitable to handle those issues at the Internet Registries (IRs), but we think it should be registered in the IRs database since that is part of assignment information. References ---------- TBD

8 9

Discussion before vs after asking consensus
by Masato Yamanishi 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

Dear Colleagues, While now I'm seeing a lot of comments on the list and it is good thing, let me ask you to state these comments before asking consensus in OPM. While I have announced three proposal discussed in Jakarta, only two comments (one opposition for prop-104 and one support for prop-105) were made on the list. http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/08/ Even in the meeting, the discussion was not so active compared to previous meetings. Without enough comments and discussions before asking consensus, authors cannot improve their proposals in timely manner. Also, few discussion makes difficult for Chairs to gauging community's opinion. As a result, proposals may need more meetings to reach consensus or fail. Certainly, "no interest" is one of possible opinions, but it is not easy to distinguish them from "not yet been interested" or "just hesitate". IMO, current situation is not bottom-up discussion and rather it looks like a voting for the agenda which were provided by somebody. So, please express your opinion and have productive discussion before asking consensus in Auckland and future meetings. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Chair

2 3

Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
by Masato Yamanishi 13 Sep '15

13 Sep '15

Dear colleagues Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria, reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for the final Comment Period. At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to allow further discussion. If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net> - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015 Proposal details ---------------- This is a proposal changes the criteria for AS number requests from end-user organizations considering multihoming. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards Masato and Sumon ----------------------------------------------------------- prop-114-v003: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria ----------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui(a)gmail.com Skeeve Stevens skeeve(a)eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision) Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed, OR - have previous allocated provider independent address space by APNIC, AND intend to multi-home in the future 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid request. Disadvantages: It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have any effect. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No impact on existing resource holders.

7 6

Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
by Masato Yamanishi 13 Sep '15

13 Sep '15

Dear colleagues Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria, reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for the final Comment Period. At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to allow further discussion. If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net> - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015 Proposal details ---------------- This is a proposal changes the criteria for IPv4 address requests from end-user organizations considering multihoming. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 Regards Masato and Sumon ------------------------------------------------------------ prop-113-v003: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria ------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui(a)gmail.com Skeeve Stevens skeeve(a)eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple eligibility criteria and applicants must meet one criteria to be eligible to receive IPv4 resources. One of the criteria dictates that “an organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed with provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multi-home within one month” (section 3.3). The policy seems to imply that multi-homing is mandatory even if there is no use case for the applicant to be multi-homed or even when there is only one upstream provider available, this has created much confusion in interpreting this policy. As a result organizations have either tempted to provide incorrect or fabricated multi-homing information to get the IPv4 resources or barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text of section 3.3. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- ARIN: There is no multi-homing requirement RIPE: There is no multi-homing requirement. LACNIC: Applicant can either have multi-homing requirement or interconnect. AFRINIC: There is no multi-homing requirement. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if: - it is currently multi-homed, OR - currently utilising provider (ISP) assignment of at least a /24, AND intends to be multi-homed, OR - intends to be multi-homed, AND advertise the prefixes within 6 months Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms must demonstrate that they are able to use 25% of the requested addresses immediately and 50% within one year. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Simplifies the process of applying for IPv4 address space for small delegations and delays the immediate requirement for multi-homing as determined to be appropriate within the timeframe as detailed in Section 3.3. Disadvantages: There is no known disadvantage of this proposal. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No impact on existing resource holders.

6 5

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration
by Seun Ojedeji 13 Sep '15

13 Sep '15

Hi, Speaking as a non-region participants and haven looked through the APNIC PDP[1], it does seem that if there is no consensus on a proposal, it needs to be discussed in other to determine if a proposal should be withdrawn or not. I quote the relevant section below: "....If there is no consensus on a proposal at either of these forums, the SIG (either on the mailing list or at a future OPM) will discuss whether to amend the proposal or to withdraw it...." It also seem that the life of a policy is only determined by the above condition. So a proposal can live on (even if not updated?) so long as the condition above is meet. It then seem that the SIG Co-Chairs are in order with process on this particular proposal. That said, considering that the region PDP allows discussing and observing consensus on whether to withdraw a policy from the list, then I guess your wish may still be possible depending on the SIG members support. Regards 1. https://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/documents/policy-developme… Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Sep 2015 17:04, "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve(a)v4now.com> wrote: Masato-san, With the greatest respect for Tomohiro-san and Ruri-san and yourself, I am very disappointed with your decision to return prop-115 to the list AGAIN for discussion and for a survey. You asked for consensus on a Survey and asked who was FOR it - no one (I can see)... who was AGAINST - no one (I can see). Your response was "since there is no objection to have such survey" - BUT there was no support either! You've chose to spend money and time of APNICs on something that no one cares about - at all. You say below that the proposal did not reach consensus. NO ONE supporting it - apart from the authors is the definition of consensus - which is that it is *not* supported. It is also now at its third version and there is STILL no support. (for history see https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115) It had no support even in Japan at APNIC 39 - does this not say something that a policy in the home country does not even get up? Masato, why are you keeping this proposal alive? to the point of spending money and resources on it. This is starting to smell like you are looking out for a fellow countryman or APNIC wants it to happen. I would hope as Chair this would not be the case, but all indications point to it as you will not let it die based on the overwhelming lack of support the proposal has. I have nothing against this policy as such... I just think that it is an overhead that the ISPs rather than APNIC needs to do. I am not against it... or for it. But I am against you trying to push along a policy on life-support until people get so bored someone supports it into existence. Community... if you support this proposal... then SHOW you do... here... now. If you do NOT support it, then please (again) also state that you do not - before money is spent on it. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve(a)v4now.com ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information > in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open > Policy Meeting. > > The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research > into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for > further consideration. > > Proposal details > ---------------- > > This proposal seeks to require LIRs to register accurate filtering > information, such as IPv4 port-range information and IPv6 assignment > prefix size. > > Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and > links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115 > > Regards > > Masato and Sumon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > prop-115-v003: Registration of detailed assignment information in > whois DB > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposer: Ruri Hiromi > hiromi(a)inetcore.com > > Tomohiro Fujisaki > fujisaki(a)syce.net > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > > Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment > information in more detail to specify user IP address. > > Without this information, operators cannot filter out specific > address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering > whole ISP's address range). > > For example: > > 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4 > > ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing > technology with assignment of IP address and specified port > range to their users. > > In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user. > > ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA > 192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB > > or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X > minimum size is /32 > > 2) address assignment size information in IPv6 > > The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP and > its service estimation. Address assignment prefix size will be > necessary. > > ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA > 2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB > > or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56 > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to > their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be > filtered or not. > > The goal is providing more specific information to support these > actions. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB. > > For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address > entry. > > For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information > for specific IPv6 address. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > - operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct assignment > information base. > > - users who share same address space can be avoid to be including bulk > filtering. > > Disadvantages: > > - registration rule will move to more strict manner. > > - strict watch and control in registration of database records. > > - additional record or option will be considered. > > - privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these > records. > > > 6. Impact on APNIC > ------------------ > > This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB and appropriate > changes in policy document or guidance to whois DB will be needed. > > Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed to set > access privilege to the detailed information. > > Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed in > Help message/Warning/Alert when whois DB has non-privileged access. > > Some kind of promotion cost might be needed in announcing. > > Need cooperation and support from members(ISPs). > > 7. Other Consideration > ---------------------- > > For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see > only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is > needed) > > For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration > should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a > harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting > services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands. > > Some ISP use IRR DB to notice their filter policy towards BGP > community with "remarks" filed in aut-num record. Need more > discussion among APNIC members on using whois DB versus IRR DB. > > Start a pilot project for research its demands and effectiveness > in APNIC region. APNIC is a worthy body to lead this pilot project. > > There are some opinions that it is not suitable to handle those > issues at the Internet Registries (IRs), but we think it should be > registered in the IRs database since that is part of assignment > information. > > References > ---------- > > TBD > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

1 0

Participate in the APNIC Open Policy Meeting
by Adam Gosling 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

Dear community members The APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting begins with the opening of on-site voting for the NRO NC election today at 09:00 (UTC +7). The agenda includes three policy proposals and several interesting informational presentations and discussions. For more details on the agenda and to access remote participation facilities please visit https://conference.apnic.net/40/policy If you wish to participate in the consensus call for the policy proposals, please register for Confer before the SIG meeting. Confer (CONsensus FEedback in Realtime) is an electronic system being introduced to facilitate remote participation in the consensus calls. For instructions on how to register and use the Confer consensus system please visit https://www.apnic.net/using_confer Kind regards, Adam _______________________________________________________ Adam Gosling Internet Policy Development Consultant, APNIC e: adam(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3142 m: +61 421 456 243 t: @boutpolicy _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy September 2015