Marcelo and all, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I guess that your point is not strictly related with this particular IPv6 policy proposal but in general about if policies should be common or not. (so i changed the subject)
Yes in part, this is the point I was trying to make and support from others comments/remarks.
IMHO not taking into account what ather regions are doing is clearly a mistake (i don't think anyone thinks otherwise)
Agreed.
OTOH, i am not sure that a joint policy should be the default option. Different regions have very different realities and policies should be adapted to this realities.
Yes to a very small degree I agree. However in allocation minimums and maximums I and our members in all regions, do not agree.
Cooordination is required and so forums like this one to coordinate policies and where people from other regions can give their opinion on other region's policies are needed
Agreed here strongly. However it again seems that sharing these discussions with other regions seems to be something some participants such as Brian have seemingly been not desiring to do...
So i guess that we should try to do joint policies when it is possible and when a policy is suitable for all the regions, but i am not very confident that this will be the case always
Of course in some instances joint of global policies will not be adequate for some regions. However this should be the rare exception, not the norm.
Coming back to the IPv6 case...
For this particular case of IPv6, i understand that several regions are having problems whith the policy. APNIC people have brought lot of issues about this policy to this list and also a proposal to waive the 200 /48 assignments has been discussed in ARIN, so perhaps there is possibility here for a joint policy. If we were to do this, how do think we should continue?
First we all should be sharing discussions on issue areas of common consideration. And from their ICANN should set or incorporate any such policy which the RIR's must conform to after of course, stakeholder/user input and considerations is based on a measured consensus...
Regards, marcelo
-----Mensaje original----- De: global-v6-admin@lists.apnic.net [mailto:global-v6-admin@lists.apnic.net]En nombre de Jeff Williams Enviado el: lunes, 19 de enero de 2004 12:16 Para: mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es CC: Kosuke Ito; German Valdez; Izumi Okutani; global-v6@lists.apnic.net; icann board address Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
Marcelo and all,
The issue is not whether Lacnic has a great need now for IPv6 addresses or not, or wheater other other RIR's have their own minimum allocation policy. Rather the issue is should or should not any such allocation policy be uniform across all RIR's and how should that policy be determined.
What is seemingly happening is history repeating itself again in that each region is jumping to a conclusion without consideration enough for the future and desiring to be far to restrictive due to special interests. We saw allot of this during Jon Postels tenure and it lead to a huge mess...
marcelo bagnulo wrote:
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
and direct way?
German Valdez wrote:
Hi Izumi
sorry for delay
It is intention of the RIR to work in common policies,
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
we are sharing this criteria with the Global IPv6 community.
This 45 days period of comment (which ends at january 23rd) is not
reason 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
> >That's also one method of the policy process that's
responsible like the IPv6 policy. For this policy like IPv4. 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
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
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