Hi Javed, I think you’re getting something wrong. Policies aren’t there so APNIC can verify “everything” to “every” member. This will be impossible. Policies are there so everybody know the rules, and try their best to avoid breaking them. Policies are there to avoid bad-intentions from bad-Internet actors, in order to protect the majority (the good ones). If we only accept policies when they can be verified, then we will have an empty policy book :-) If APNIC does a verification, for whatever reason (any suspicius, a claim from another member, etc.), and a rule is broken, APNIC should take measures if the member doesn’t correct it. In some cases those measures may mean member closure, resource recovery, etc. This is a completely different discussion which has policy and service agreement implications. Please, note before continue reading that this only affects end-user direct assignments by APNIC or the NIRs. Not clarifiying this caused some confusion in the discussion of the last meeting. So if you’re an ISP (I’m not sure if that’s your case), this proposal doesn’t affect you. It only affect you, if you are getting a direct assignment from APNIC or any of the NIRs. The fact here is that if, for example, an university, which got a direct assignment from APNIC, is providing the students public addresses (IPv4) or global addresses (IPv6), it is against the policy. In the case of IPv4, the solution is easy, use NAT and private addresses (but not all the universities do that). However in IPv6 this is not the solution, we don’t have NAT. I can put many other similar examples (remember again, this is only the case when the addresses are directly assigned to the end-user by APNIC or the NIR, not by an ISP): a point to point link from the university to another network, an employee getting addresses from a company, thir party companies offering services to that company or university, a municipality offering WiFi to citizens, etc. The proposal solves both cases, the IPv4 and the IPv6 one. Note that this has been already corrected in all the other RIRs (ARIN, AFRINIC, LACNIC and RIPE). All them had the same problem in their policy text. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/8/19 16:01, "Javed Khan" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de javedkhankh@outlook.com> escribió: I do not support this proposal. Intention is good but no one is really concerned nor can verify this in practice. I think the current policy text is good. Kind regards Javed Khan MSCE and CCSP From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net> on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasabir@gmail.com> Dear SIG members * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. |