[sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
I do not believe this policy will achieve its stated objective: to accelerate IPv6 implementation. Automatically delegating IPv6 address space to new and initial IPv4 requests, may increase the number of IPv6 delegations. But, the bar to get an IPv6 delegation is already pretty low, and it is not the limiting factor for IPv6 implementation in a network. The limiting factor is the actual work of implementing IPv6 in a network. I suspect many, if not most, networks requesting IPv4 will accept the IPv6 delegation and simply fail to proceed with its IPv6 implementation in their network. IPv4 policy has not been and will not be an effective lever to increase IPv6 implementations. Thanks. -- === David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 === ___ 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: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:49 PM Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 21:50 Christopher Hawker, > wrote: > >> NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative >> functions under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain >> economies and cultures. >> >> NIRs are independent of RIRs and operate via a NIR Member Relationship >> Agreement. The MRA outlines what NIRs are able to do. >> > > That is a problem on this discussion, a big missundertanding about how > things are organized in practice. > I think you are arguing about semantics; I believe APNIC gives NIRs significant latitude to create local policies and procedures appropriate to their local economies, culture, or laws; Nevertheless, the "APNIC and NIR Member Relationship Agreement" clearly states, "Recitals; c. ... National Internet Registries provide procedures and services that take account of local cultural differences, while operating in a way that remains consistent with regional and global resource management policies." Further, "2.3 Termination, a. APNIC may terminate this agreement in any of the following circumstances: 4. The NIR Member commits a substantial breach of this agreement or any APNIC Address Management Policy;" https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/nir-membership-agreement/ https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/operational-policies-nirs/ "APNIC and NIR Member Relationship Agreement" is a cooperative agreement or contract. It, therefore, doesn't override local or international laws, and the only real enforcement action is the termination of the agreement. Furthermore, I imagine APNIC would not pursue termination of the agreement except under the most egregious violation and only after both informal and formal opportunities to correct the situation. Can we please get back to the policy discussion at hand? Thanks. -- === David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 === ___ 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: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Dear Mike and Fernando, Mike: I have been under the impression that the APNIC NIRs must adhere to APNIC policies but could create their own policies if they don’t contradict those of APNIC. Yes. Please notice the policy proposals in APNIC sig-policy often have the section of "applicability in NIR" (sorry no phrase in my crappy memory) and there are cases where NIRs have some room for localizing it. It's due to some reasons. In JPNIC case we have our own registry system and the policies which require additional implementation at the registry system often need some treatment like allowance for the local implementation. For the transfer, APNIC doesn't force NIRs to allow transfer, but it was under the discretion of NIR to allow it or now and that isn't recognized to contradict APNIC policy. Moreover, from a bit different angle, If an NIR only can implement APNIC policy, how local community can propose a policy they want? It sounds like the local people still need to propose it to APNIC sig-policy? So in case of Japan we have a local policy forum where community members can propose something to the existing policies and established the mechanism to keep consistency between local forum and sig-policy - proposals in local forum, if once got consensus, will be brought to sig-policy, a new policy proposals in sig-policy will be introduced in the local to measure temperature and being reported back to sig-policy and consensus policy in sig-policy will be simply reviewed in the local for implementation at JPNIC. Hope these help you. I wonder why NIR got such a big spot light, but I am happy to explain further. I think we with local policy forum leaders do the right things. Thank you, Akinori On 2024/01/25 1:00, Mike Burns wrote: In the past I have had problems with the transfer policies of APNIC NIRs not matching APNIC’s own transfer policies. When those differences prevented a transfer I asked APNIC to intervene by imposing the (governing, to my mind) APNIC transfer policies on the recalcitrant NIR. And that was effective but maybe it didn’t settle the issue, which I think should be clear to all. I believe that there is a hierarchy in which the topmost organizations delegate some specified roles to subsidiary organizations via some document like a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It would be such a document that spells out whether policies must match, or if they mismatch which is controlling. I have been under the impression that the APNIC NIRs must adhere to APNIC policies but could create their own policies if they don’t contradict those of APNIC. I hope somebody can clear it up. Regards, Mike *From:* Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:25 AM *To:* sig-policy *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request To resume my initial point there is no point in allowing NIRs to develop and have specific policies, complicate and confuse things unecessarily. Policies developed by the entire RIR community is more than enough in order to regulate how IP addreess assignment is conducted as in all.other RIRs worldwide. NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative functions under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain economies and cultures. Best regards Fernando On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 11:47 Fernando Frediani, wrote: Hi On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, wrote: Fernando, 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 mentioned several times the diference between policies and administrative and legal obligations and you simplify very much the question. No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the policies for IP address assignment anywhere. Don't confuse it with mandate legal obligations within a certain jurisdiction. > NIRs are never meant to be "mini-RIRs"or something in that line. 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
[sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Hello Fernando, To resume my initial point there is no point in allowing NIRs to develop and have specific policies, complicate and confuse things unecessarily. It only complicates and confuses things for people who have no idea or understanding what goes on and what they are talking about. Policies developed by the entire RIR community is more than enough in order to regulate how IP addreess assignment is conducted as in all.other RIRs worldwide. You've quite clearly disregarded what has been mentioned previously. NIRs have the ability to form policies for their own economies to allow them to better serve the needs of their economies, provided they do not conflict with RIR policies. NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative functions under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain economies and cultures. NIRs are independent of RIRs and operate via a NIR Member Relationship Agreement. The MRA outlines what NIRs are able to do. You may wish to read https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/nir-membership-agreement/ for a more comprehensive list. Regards, Christopher Hawker ___ 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: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
In the past I have had problems with the transfer policies of APNIC NIRs not matching APNIC’s own transfer policies. When those differences prevented a transfer I asked APNIC to intervene by imposing the (governing, to my mind) APNIC transfer policies on the recalcitrant NIR. And that was effective but maybe it didn’t settle the issue, which I think should be clear to all. I believe that there is a hierarchy in which the topmost organizations delegate some specified roles to subsidiary organizations via some document like a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It would be such a document that spells out whether policies must match, or if they mismatch which is controlling. I have been under the impression that the APNIC NIRs must adhere to APNIC policies but could create their own policies if they don’t contradict those of APNIC. I hope somebody can clear it up. Regards, Mike From: Fernando Frediani Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:25 AM To: sig-policy Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request To resume my initial point there is no point in allowing NIRs to develop and have specific policies, complicate and confuse things unecessarily. Policies developed by the entire RIR community is more than enough in order to regulate how IP addreess assignment is conducted as in all.other RIRs worldwide. NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative functions under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain economies and cultures. Best regards Fernando On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 11:47 Fernando Frediani, mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, mailto:d...@virtualized.org> > wrote: Fernando, On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:19 AM, Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com> > 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 mentioned several times the diference between policies and administrative and legal obligations and you simplify very much the question. No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the policies for IP address assignment anywhere. Don't confuse it with mandate legal obligations within a certain jurisdiction. > NIRs are never meant to be "mini-RIRs"or something in that line. 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. > No resources would arrive to a NIR if not via the RIR This is factually incorrect as it ignores the reality that addresses were allocated (to NIRs and others) prior to the existence of the RIRs. It also ignores the existence of the “transfer" market. This is incorrect understanding on how registration works worldwide. Any inter-RIR tranfers are made following - guess what - RIR policies and as such all transfers goes trough a RIR system even if they end up in a NIR, but following RIR policies. It has been already mentioned that anything done before the existance of certain RIRs is treated as legacy and from a long time this doesn't exist anymore so anything anywhere in the world that is not related to legacy resources is always done via the policies of one of the RIRs. Fernando 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] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
To resume my initial point there is no point in allowing NIRs to develop and have specific policies, complicate and confuse things unecessarily. Policies developed by the entire RIR community is more than enough in order to regulate how IP addreess assignment is conducted as in all.other RIRs worldwide. NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative functions under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain economies and cultures. Best regards Fernando On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 11:47 Fernando Frediani, wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, wrote: > >> Fernando, >> >> 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 mentioned several times > the diference between policies and administrative and legal obligations and > you simplify very much the question. > No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the > policies for IP address assignment anywhere. Don't confuse it with mandate > legal obligations within a certain jurisdiction. > > >> > NIRs are never meant to be "mini-RIRs"or something in that line. >> >> 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. > > > No resources would arrive to a NIR if not via the RIR >> >> This is factually incorrect as it ignores the reality that addresses were >> allocated (to NIRs and others) prior to the existence of the RIRs. It also >> ignores the existence of the “transfer" market. >> > > This is incorrect understanding on how registration works worldwide. Any > inter-RIR tranfers are made following - guess what - RIR policies and as > such all transfers goes trough a RIR system even if they end up in a NIR, > but following RIR policies. > > It has been already mentioned that anything done before the existance of > certain RIRs is treated as legacy and from a long time this doesn't exist > anymore so anything anywhere in the world that is not related to legacy > resources is always done via the policies of one of the RIRs. > > Fernando > >> >> 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] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Hi On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, wrote: > Fernando, > > 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 mentioned several times the diference between policies and administrative and legal obligations and you simplify very much the question. No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the policies for IP address assignment anywhere. Don't confuse it with mandate legal obligations within a certain jurisdiction. > > NIRs are never meant to be "mini-RIRs"or something in that line. > > 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. > No resources would arrive to a NIR if not via the RIR > > This is factually incorrect as it ignores the reality that addresses were > allocated (to NIRs and others) prior to the existence of the RIRs. It also > ignores the existence of the “transfer" market. > This is incorrect understanding on how registration works worldwide. Any inter-RIR tranfers are made following - guess what - RIR policies and as such all transfers goes trough a RIR system even if they end up in a NIR, but following RIR policies. It has been already mentioned that anything done before the existance of certain RIRs is treated as legacy and from a long time this doesn't exist anymore so anything anywhere in the world that is not related to legacy resources is always done via the policies of one of the RIRs. Fernando > > 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] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Fernando, 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? > NIRs are never meant to be "mini-RIRs"or something in that line. 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. > No resources would arrive to a NIR if not via the RIR This is factually incorrect as it ignores the reality that addresses were allocated (to NIRs and others) prior to the existence of the RIRs. It also ignores the existence of the “transfer" market. 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
