[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
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.
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.
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)
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
>
