Re: [sig-policy] New version - prop-133-v002: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
I agree… I don’t think there is any benefit to this policy and I oppose adding IPv6 to inter-RIR transfers of any form.
Owen
> On Feb 16, 2020, at 20:20 , Tsurumaki, Satoru <stsuruma@bbix.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.
>
> I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-133,
> based on a meeting we organised on 4th Feb to discuss these proposals.
>
> Many opposing opinions were expressed about this proposal.
>
> (comment details)
> - In the discuss about previous proposal, prop-124, some opinions
> were expressed as to who was in trouble and who needed to change, but
> it seems that the proposer did not respond to these opinions in this
> proposal.
> - IP addresses should be delegated on an as-needed basis, and if this
> proposal is passed, there is concern that clarification of the
> intended use at the time of acquisition will be lost.
> - While it may be good to loosen the policy operationally, we oppose
> easing the policy itself.
> - This proposal seems not to aim "Clarification" of Sub assignment.
>
> Regards,
> Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
>
> 2020年2月16日(日) 18:31 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>:
>>
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> A new version of the proposal "prop-133-v002: Clarification on
>> Sub-Assignments" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>>
>> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-133
>>
>> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>>
>> Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>> Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>> What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>>
>> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> prop-133-v002: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
>> jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
>>
>> 1. Problem statement
>>
>> Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct
>> assignments from APNIC,
>> or when a LIR obtains, also from APNIC, and assignment for exclusive use
>> within its infrastructure.
>> Consequently, this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations.
>>
>> The intended goal of assignments is for usage by end-users or LIRs in
>> their own infrastructure (servers,
>> equipment, interconnections, employees, guest devices, subcontractors,
>> only within that infrastructure),
>> not for sub-assignment in other networks.
>>
>> The current text uses a “must” together with “documented purposes”. As a
>> consequence, if there is a request
>> with a documented purpose, and in the future the assigned space is used
>> for some other purposes, it will
>> violate the policy.
>>
>> For example, a university may document in the request, that the assigned
>> addressing space will be used for
>> their own network devices and serves, but afterwards they also
>> sub-assign to the students in the campus
>> (still same infrastructure). This last purpose was not documented, so it
>> will fall out of the policy.
>>
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>>
>> Clarification of the text, by rewording it.
>>
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>>
>> This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC and
>> RIPE.
>>
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>>
>> Actual text:
>> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
>> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
>> end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they
>> operate. Assignments must only be made for specific, documented purposes
>> and may not be sub-assigned.
>>
>> Proposed text:
>> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
>> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
>> end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate.
>>
>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>>
>> Advantages:
>> Advantages of the proposal:
>> Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the
>> real situation in the market.
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>> Disadvantages of the proposal:
>> None foreseen.
>>
>> 6. Impact on resource holders
>>
>> Impact on resource holders:
>> None.
>>
>> 7. References
>>
>> AFRINIC: https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-v6-002-d3#details
>>
>> ARIN:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-5-allocation-assignment-reallocation-reassignment
>> and https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_15/
>>
>> LACNIC:
>> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-7?language=en
>>
>> RIPE NCC: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04
>>
>> * 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
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Satoru Tsurumaki
> BBIX, Inc
> * 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