Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

Thanks David for your points, I'm working on v3 to address some of these concern. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:22 PM David Farmer wrote: > The increased consequences of an APNIC Member failing to pay fees or the > extremely rare possibility of an error by APNIC Staff

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

The increased consequences of an APNIC Member failing to pay fees or the extremely rare possibility of an error by APNIC Staff should be called out as a potential impacts of the proposal in section 7. Personally, I support the proposal, but it is a matter of informed consent, the community needs

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 20:37 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > > Hi Owen, > cutting some stuff out, just to keep the thread small. > > Anyone can very quickly put just about anything in RADB if they want to. It’s > also relatively easy to put nearly anything in the current ARIN IRR (not to > be

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

Hi Owen, cutting some stuff out, just to keep the thread small. Anyone can very quickly put just about anything in RADB if they want to. > It’s also relatively easy to put nearly anything in the current ARIN IRR > (not to be confused with the ARIN RIR database). There are also some other > IRRs

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 16:40 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:04 am, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > >> On Aug 28, 2019, at 13:44 , Aftab Siddiqui > > wrote: >> >> Hi Javed, >> >> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 6:33 am,

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 9:04 am, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Aug 28, 2019, at 13:44 , Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: > > Hi Javed, > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 6:33 am, Javed Khan > wrote: > >> We may think we are living in a perfect world but we are not. >> > > of course > > With this proposal I'm more

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 13:44 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > Hi Javed, > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 6:33 am, Javed Khan > wrote: > We may think we are living in a perfect world but we are not. > > of course > > With this proposal I'm more worried about the network

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

Hi Javed, On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 6:33 am, Javed Khan wrote: > We may think we are living in a perfect world but we are not. > of course With this proposal I'm more worried about the network downtime as managing > an AS0 ROA by an RIR may be prone to errors as we all do regardless if its > a

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

We may think we are living in a perfect world but we are not. With this proposal I'm more worried about the network downtime as managing an AS0 ROA by an RIR may be prone to errors as we all do regardless if its a manual or automated solution. Operators network downtime doesn't have any effect

Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

PDP is a community driven consensus process agreed by the community not by courts nor legal experts. I am confused with your reference to "courts", "ilegal" and "legislation". If the intention here to scare the community then its truly not required. I think under the current PDP the Chairs

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

Thanks Srinivas. I understand and may be its premature to ask for legal review of this proposal but at least if we can get APNIC proposed implementation that might help. J Khan From: Srinivas Chendi Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2019 7:25 AM To: Javed Khan Cc:

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Monday, 26 August 2019 6:19 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments Hi Javed, I think you’re getting something wrong.

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

Yes but the proposed text is not clear. In with the current policy text, LIRs are not allowed to make sub-assignments from their assigned address space outside of their infrastructure. So I do not support this change in policy. J Khan From: