Re: IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

Hi,

I sat in during one of the meetings where this was originally
discussed and as I understand it the motivation was to encourage
some level of seriousness.  Basically if the intent is there to
deploy IPv6 in a serious way, then please get an address.  The
number 200 in that sense is somewhat arbritrary.

-c
ASO/AC


>>>>> "ki" == Kosuke Ito <[email protected]> writes:

    ki> Marcelo

    ki> will you please tell me why the particular condition
    ki> should be deleted instead of changing the number from 200
    ki> to, say, 100 or 50?
    ki> Or is there any conclusion in your discussion that the number
    ki> other than Zero is meaning nothing?

    ki> Kosuke


    ki> marcelo bagnulo wrote:
    >>> 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 <[email protected]>
    >>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>>>  >>>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 [email protected], 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
>>>>>  >>>>[email protected]
>>>>>  >>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>  >>>global-v6 mailing list
>>>>>  >>>[email protected]
>>>>>  >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >>_______________________________________________
>>>>>  >>global-v6 mailing list
>>>>>  >>[email protected]
>>>>>  >>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 [email protected]
>>>>>  > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > _______________________________________________
>>>>>  > global-v6 mailing list
>>>>>  > [email protected]
>>>>>  > 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: [email protected]   http://www.v6pc.jp/
    >>>>>> Lifetime e-mail: [email protected]
    >>>>>> 
    >>>>>> 
    >>>>>> 
    >>>>>> _______________________________________________
    >>>>>> global-v6 mailing list
    >>>>>> [email protected]
    >>>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
    >>>>>> 
    >>>>> 
    >>>>> _______________________________________________
    >>>>> global-v6 mailing list
    >>>>> [email protected]
    >>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
    >>>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>>> _______________________________________________
    >>>> global-v6 mailing list
    >>>> [email protected]
    >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
    >>> 
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> global-v6 mailing list
    >>> [email protected]
    >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
    >>> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 



    ki> -- 
    ki> **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************
    ki> Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group
    ki> IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
    ki> (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University)
    ki> Tel:+81-3-5209-4588  Fax:+81-3-3255-9955
    ki> Cell:+81-90-4605-4581
    ki> mailto: [email protected]   http://www.v6pc.jp/
    ki> Lifetime e-mail: [email protected]

    ki> _______________________________________________
    ki> global-v6 mailing list
    ki> [email protected]
    ki> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6