APNIC Home APNIC Home
Info & FAQ |  Resource services |  Training |  Meetings |  Membership |  Documents |  Whois & Search |  Internet community

You're here:  Home  Mailing Lists global-v6 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

Anne and all,

You are right. IPv6 policy is not a global policy but global-coordinated
policies just like IPv4's. Actually, under this way of thinking,
RIRs are maintaining an IPv4 policy comparison list which describes
differences in policy of each region.
Here, IMHO, coordination means
- to globally recognize the differences and reasons for these and
- to globally have rough consensus on these.

In this case, LACNIC will remove "200 for 2 years" rule with
the reason IPv6 deployment in that region may be a bit slower than that in others.
If this is the difference and the reason, I would generally support
this idea except one thing.

If the reason is so, probably, I would like to suggest to set a time
limit, say 2 years, for the new LACNIC policy and review it two years later,
i.e. check IPv6 deployment status in LACNIC (and other regions) at that time
and try to conform to the global-coordinated policy of that time unless the
reason is still valid.

Regards,
Takashi Arano

P.S.
My very PERSONAL feeling is a bit pity to allow a new non-equivalent
policy to be in effect in some region, though....


At 14:04 04/01/20, Anne Lord wrote:

Hi Izumi, Kosuke,

> Could I confirm once again that this was the concious
> decision(acknowledgement) made by all RIRs, having considered its
> implications?

I think German has replied to this question and I think the reply
from the APNIC Secretariat will be similar.

This was *not* part of a concious decision or acknowledgement made
by all the RIRs. The decision flowed from the LACNIC community
proposing and accepting the proposal as meeting a 'need' in their
region.

It is useful to observe that this policy is globally co-ordinated
rather than a global policy: there were never any agreements by
any RIR staff that there would be a single global policy. Actually
APNIC EC has taken a decision to interpret one aspect of the policy
in a way that differs from the other regions. See:

http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-policy-clarification.html

I also see this and the LACNIC change as part of the normal globally
co-ordinated policy development processes. My understanding is that
the reason that LACNIC announced their consensus on the global-v6 policy
discussion list, was in order to collect feedback from the other
regions, and if necessary to re-asses the consensus decision.
In other words, this was an attempt to look at the global context
and to co-ordinate.

Also please feel welcome to bring the proposed change, and this
discussion to the agenda of the Policy SIG at the forthcoming
APNIC Open Policy Meeting.

Best wishes,

Anne
--

> From: Kosuke Ito <kosuke@bugest.net>
> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:08:36 +0900
>
> >
> > Hi, German and all
> >
> > I do understand that LACNIC community like to have their
> > own "bootstrap" condition for deploying IPv6 in LACNIC
> > region, but I do NOT like to have it with an open jaw
> > condition, anyway.
> >
> > And, I would like to know other RIRs people's view on
> > this matter, and how LACNIC consider the possible side
> > effect to the global community once the LACNIC special
> > condition is implemented.
> > I believe that RIRs/NIRs community should have a single
> > view (even though each region has a different need) on
> > the global coordinated policy like the IPv6 policy which
> > was built up on the large amount of efforts balancing many
> > factors from the global point of view, since the IP address
> > space is a global resourse shared accross the globe.
> > And RIRs/NIRs, I personally believe, should set a allowance
> > of changing the global policy to accomodate a local need.
> > When it needs to change (locally), possible effects after
> > the change should be discussed from the global resourse
> > management point of view at the same time.
> >
> > I would not like to see avalanche multiplication on relaxing
> > the allocation conditions initiating from LACNIC to all other
> > regions... This is my worry.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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