[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
>
> If LACNIC implemented this special condition for LACNIC
> region, most likely I guess, communities in other regions
> like to have the same kind of conditions in their own, and
> the proposal to do so may come out in the coming meetings
> respectively, since everyone likes to have a relaxed policy
> always. Right?
Well, i am not sure about this.
I mean, if the communities of the other regions feel that they need more
relaxed assignment policy for IPv6, i guess they need them and they should
have it, independently of what the lacnic region does.
Reality in the lacnic region is very different from reality in other
regions, so i don't think that it is a valid argument for them to claim that
they should have a relaxed policy because the lacnic region have it.
After discussions on the lists and plenery meetings, the lacnic community
feels that the current policy is not adecuate for the reality of the region.
OTOH, i do understand your point about that if a more relaxed policy appears
in a region may induce other people in other regions to ask for that relaxed
region. But as i mentioned above, IMHO this is not a valid argument to
change the policy of other regions and i am not sure that this is enough to
prevent that the lacnic region changes its policy when such policy is not
appropriate for the relaity of the region.
>
> > 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.
>
> I do understand your motivation, but it should be done
> very carefully, because your motivation applys to other
> regions as well to some extent.
As i mentioned above, i can see that this may have some impact in other
regions.
So i guess that we should coordinate how we do this, but i don't think we
should stop the progress of this IPv6 policy proposal in the lacnic region
>
> > 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)
>
> There are many countries having the similar situation like yours
> in APNIC region as well, I believe. If LACNIC allows to put off
> this specific condition, then, many of ISPs who has not had an
> IPv6 allocation yet in APNIC likes to have the same one in
> APNIC. Many of ISPs even in Japan may welcome to have it, too.
> Maybe same in RIPE-NCC, and in ARIN.
That it is a really interesting point.
However, IMHO this is a bit different since at least some of the IPSs in the
region can obtain an IPv6 allocation, while in the lacnic region almost no
ISP has an IPv6 allocation.
Regards, marcelo
>
> Regards,
>
> Kosuke
>
>
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> **********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
>
