[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
> 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.
As far as i understand, this is the motivation for the proposed change.
> 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.
I agree.
thanks for your suggestion.
marcelo
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>
