[sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Echoing what David has said + there exists a NIR - -SIG in the APNIC ecosystem. Its charter is to share information on operations, policies, and procedures and close cooperation with APNIC. Regards Anupam Agrawal On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 2:21 PM David Conrad wrote: > Fernando, > > On Jan 24, 2024, at 3:47 PM, Fernando Frediani > wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, wrote: > >> On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:19 AM, Fernando Frediani >> wrote: >> > No government should ever be able to mandate anything related to policy >> development and how they apply to IP space assignment and use. >> I’m actually curious: why do you believe you (or the RIRs) are able to >> tell governments what they can or cannot mandate? > > I think you are not following this discussion and trying to speak about > soemthing different from what is being discussed. > > > I actually am following the discussion and I am trying to follow your > argumentation in response to Christopher Hawker that you started with: > > "One thing that must end in APNIC is the possibilit for NIR to have their > own set of policies. This just doesn't make sense, even if they don't > conflict with APNIC's policies." > > As Akinori has pointed out, JPNIC develops its own policies within the > APNIC policy framework which is, in turn, developed within the framework > defined in RFC 7020 (and its predecessors). You state above that NIRs > (e.g., JPNIC) must not be able to do that, even if those policies “don’t > conflict with APNIC policies.” Your statement suggests a fundamental > misunderstanding of the relationships between APNIC and the NIRs that I’m > trying to understand. > > No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the > policies for IP address assignment anywhere. > > > Somewhat orthogonal to the proposal, but I remain curious: why do you > believe this? My understanding is that a government may, in practice, > specify pretty much anything they like, including policy for IP addressing, > for entities within their economy. > > I’m unsure what you mean by this. Simply, NIRs were (and are, as far as I >> know) intended to provide Internet registration services for entities >> within their economy. Overarching guidelines for the policies by which >> those service are provided are defined within the Internet numbers registry >> system (see RFC 7020) but those guidelines do not carry the force of law: >> they require the voluntary cooperation of the parties involved to be >> effective. >> > Maybe your conception about NIRs may not be very accurate and the > difefence between them and the RIRs and the hierarchy that exists. > > > Perhaps, although I suspect I have been doing this a bit longer than you. > Another possibility could be your mental model for how the Internet numbers > registration system works, as simple and appealing as you may find it or > how much you’d like it to be so, doesn’t actually fully correspond to > reality. > > Regards, > -drc > > ___ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
I echo Aftab's position. As the endorsement is with a rider which is different from the consensus arrived at OPM/AGM, then as per the APNIC 111 (APNIC Policy Development Process), Section 4, Step 5, EC can refer the proposal back to Policy SIG for discussions. Regards Anupam Agrawal On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:59 AM Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > I urge the EC to revisit the decision on the fee waiver. The policy's > intent was to promote the uptake of PI IPv6 by balancing incentivization > with the recovery of costs for services provided to resource holders. A > 12-month fee waiver, unfortunately fails horribly to meet this purpose and > contradicts APNIC's fundamental goal of accelerating IPv6 adoption. To > truly drive the shift towards IPv6, we must stop valuing it as if it were > IPv4 - "a costly asset" - and instead, support its adoption through more > favorable policies. The policy which the community overwhelmingly supported > but EC didn't get the essence of it. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 10:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the proposal, prop-155: IPv6 PI >> Assignment for Associate Members, at its meeting on 26-28 November 2023. >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-155/ >> >> The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under >> this policy for a period of 12 months from the date of delegation. After >> the 12 month period expires, the resources will become chargeable. >> >> Next steps >> -- >> The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the >> community as soon as it is completed. >> >> Regards, >> Sunny >> >> ___ >> >> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) >> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development >> >> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 >> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 >> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net >> ___ >> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >> recipient(s) >> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy >> all >> copies of the original message. >> >> ___ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >> > ___ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: [Apnic-announce] Results of APNIC 54 S IG and NRO NC elections
Thanks Sunny for the announcement of the results. Thanks to Ching-Heng Ku for his time and effort in charting the Policy SIG over the years. Looking forward to work with all. Regards -- Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838 > On 11-Oct-2022, at 12:21 PM, chku wrote: > > Thanks Shaila and Sunny. It's very happy to serve on the Policy SIG in past > few years. > Congratulations to Anupam Agrawal. > > Ching-Heng > > -Original message- > From:Shaila Sharmin > To:Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi > Cc:sig-policy > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 14:41:25 > Subject: [sig-policy] Re: Fwd: [Apnic-announce] Results of APNIC 54 SIG and > NRO NC elections > Congratulations to Anupam da and it was great to work with Ching-hang in last > two Policy SIG sessions. > > Shaila > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <mailto:su...@apnic.net>> wrote: > Dear SIG Members, > > Please see below... > > Congratulations to Anupam Agrawal on being elected as Policy SIG Co-Chair. > APNIC thanks outgoing Co-Chair Ching-Heng Ku for his service on the Policy > SIG. > > Regards, > Sunny > > > Forwarded Message > Subject: [Apnic-announce] Results of APNIC 54 SIG and NRO NC elections > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 04:24:00 + > From: APNIC Secretariat <mailto:secretar...@apnic.net> > Reply-To: secretar...@apnic.net <mailto:secretar...@apnic.net> > To: mailman_APNIC-announce > <mailto:apnic-annou...@apnic.net> > > > > Results of APNIC 54 SIG and NRO NC elections > > > > The analysis of the APNIC 54 community elections has now been completed. I am > pleased > to say that the election results were not impacted by the anomalies observed > in the > registration list and online participation patterns. > > I am now able to complete my duties as Election Chair and announce the > final results, which are available via the following link: > > https://s.apnic.net/54pollresults <https://s.apnic.net/54pollresults> > > The election analysis report is also available: > > https://s.apnic.net/54electionanalysis > <https://s.apnic.net/54electionanalysis> > > I would like to thank the community for its patience while the analysis was > completed. > > Congratulations to the successful candidates. > > Anju Mangal > APNIC 54 Election Chair > > > > APNIC Secretariat secretar...@apnic.net <mailto:secretar...@apnic.net> > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: 61 7 3858 3100 > PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: 61 7 3858 3199 > 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6+Cordelia+Street,+South+Brisbane,+QLD?entry=gmail=g> > http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/> > > > ___ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > <https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/> > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net > ___ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ___ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: Sec 4.2.1 - Recovery of Unused Historical Resources
Absolutely. I think the intent here is all other cases which ideally have no reason for not being unannounced. Regards Anupam. On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, 22:15 Owen DeLong, wrote: > I will point out that unannounced != unused. There are plenty of > legitimate cases for needing globally unique addresses that are not > necessarily announced in the global routing table. Exchange points are one > example. Private networks that interact with multiple internet-connected > networks is another. > > Owen > > > On Aug 2, 2022, at 03:47, Anupam Agrawal > wrote: > > > All- > > Section 4.2.1 of APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies (APNIC -127) > states that a significant amount of historical resources registered in the > APNIC Whois database are not announced to the global routing table. What's > the number we are talking about? > > Further, it has been mandated in the same section that APNIC needs to > contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a > reasonable period of time. What's the period being considered currently? > Will it make sense to have a time period included for proactive action? > > Regards > > Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838 > > ___ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net > > ___ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois role object - Proposed changes
Dear George, Once the proposed change is done, there will be no difference between the role object & irt object. Assuming, its okay with everyone to move head, is a dependency analysis available with you? I mean by dependency analysis an exercise to confirm whether or not there is something else which is dependent on role object (being changed) and if there are dependents, whether or not there is an impact of the proposed change. RegardsAnupam From: George OdagiSent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 8:30 AMTo: Anupam AgrawalCc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netSubject: Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois role object - Proposed changes Hi Anupam, Thanks for your feedback. The country information is already published in other whois attributes such as in the resource records and organization object when querying an IP address or AS number. Regarding the phone number - once it becomes optional, there is no need to populate with '+0' if a phone number has not been published in the IRT object itself. Currently it is forced to include the number as the attribute is mandatory in the role object. To give you an example of the issue at hand, please see example of IRT and abuse role objects below: irt: IRT-APNICRANDNET-AUaddress: PO Box 3646address: South Brisbane, QLD 4101address: Australiae-mail: helpd...@apnic.netabuse-mailbox: helpd...@apnic.netadmin-c: AR302-APtech-c: AR302-APauth: # Filteredremarks: helpd...@apnic.net was validated on 2021-02-09mnt-by: MAINT-AU-APNIC-GM85-APlast-modified: 2021-03-09T01:10:21Zsource: APNIC role: ABUSE APNICRANDNETAUaddress: PO Box 3646address: South Brisbane, QLD 4101address: Australiacountry: ZZphone: +0e-mail: helpd...@apnic.netadmin-c: AR302-APtech-c: AR302-APnic-hdl: AA1412-APremarks: Generated from irt object IRT-APNICRANDNET-AUabuse-mailbox: helpd...@apnic.netmnt-by: APNIC-ABUSElast-modified: 2021-03-09T01:10:22Zsource: APNIC Regards, ___George OdagiSenior Internet Resource & Policy Analyst, APNICe: helpd...@apnic.netp: +61 7 3858 3188f: +61 7 3858 3199www.apnic.net___Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ From: Anupam Agrawal Date: Tuesday, 1 June 2021 at 11:13 pmTo: George Odagi Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois role object - Proposed changesDear George, Having the country information is definitely an advantage. If the phone number is made optional, then the issue of phone field getting populated with + will still be there if the phone number is not given. Pardon my ignorance but the current APNIC model - it is causing an issue exactly where? Regards--Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838 On 01-Jun-2021, at 10:23 AM, George Odagi <god...@apnic.net> wrote: Dear Community Members, In light of the recent discussion about abuse role objects that were created as a result of prop-125, we would like to share background information about this implementation and consult with the community. APNIC acknowledges this is a known issue caused by a limitation in whois – which requires the phone number and country attributes to be mandatory in role objects. The abuse role objects are auto-generated from IRT objects, where the phone number attribute is optional and the country attribute which does not exist. This resulted in populating the phone number with '+0' in the event no phone number was provided in the IRT object and using the country 'ZZ' to indicate the country is unspecified in the IRT object. The current whois versions in the RIPE NCC and AFRINIC do not include the country attribute and the phone number attribute is treated as optional in role objects - for example, see RIPE NCC's template below: Attribute Name Presence Repeat Indexedrole: mandatory single lookup keyaddress: mandatory multiplephone: optional multiplefax-no: optional multiplee-mail: mandatory multiple lookup keyorg: optional multiple inverse keyadmin-c: optional multiple inverse keytech-c: optional multiple inverse keynic-hdl: mandatory single primary/lookup keyremarks: optional multiplenotify: optional multiple inverse keyabuse-mailbox: optional* multiple inverse keymnt-by: mandatory multiple inverse keycreated: generated singlelast-modified: generated singlesource: mandatory single A potential solution would be to upgrade APNIC's whois code to duplicate these whois rules. Doing so would result in removing the country attribute from APNIC's role objects altogether, in addition to making th
Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois role object - Proposed changes
You have put in numbers which definitely helps in visualizing the issue at hand. Thanks for that. Will it be possible to get this role object, country records with ZZ and + data records grouped by the APNIC membership tiers? Just to understand where is the problem occurring and why in role objects data. Am I missing something? RegardsAnupam From: Aftab SiddiquiSent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 4:41 PMTo: Anupam AgrawalCc: George Odagi; sig-policy@lists.apnic.netSubject: Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois role object - Proposed changes As I understand, the template being used to implement prop-125 is of role object where in the data flows from irt object. Now as country does not exist and phone number is optional in irt object but the role object template has both country and phone number mandatory, the implementation was done by making country as ZZ and in case where phone number is not there in irt, it is hard coded to appear as +000. That's correct. Now the way ahead being suggested is to change the role object template wherein country will be removed and phone number will be made optional. So unless there is a pressing need to use the role object template, to fix this, if the irt object template is considered for creating abuse role object instead of role object template, there is possibly no requirement to change the role object template. I do agree with APNIC's suggestion. Currently there are 28260 role objects in the APNIC whois db and 12066 role objects have ZZ as their Country and 11851 role objects have +0 as the phone number, not sure why there is discrepancy in the numbers. I think its a big enough problem at the moment, which can be fixed by updating the code. APNIC and AFRINIC implemented IRT objects which is a mntner object while other RIRs implemented abuse-c (role object). To keep it consistent with other RIRs it was suggested to use abuse-c in APNIC whois db as well (prop-125 was specifically for the validation of IRT, nothing else). If the consensus is to keep using the old code (which they have to upgrade sooner or later) then we can simply get rid of Abuse role object. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
