RE: IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
"marcelo bagnulo" <[email protected]> Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:30:41 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> 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 > _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6