[sig-policy] Re: prop-161-v001: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT) -- correct version

On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 07:13, Chris Woodfield wrote: > > Reading the below, I’m getting the impression that the real need here is > some sort of uniform identifier that is globally unique. While there are > other forms of identifiers out there in the world (UUIDs, UPC codes, et > al), there’s noth

[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56

members to understand the rationale behind decisions that are contradicting their consensus based opinion, when such decisions could influence the pace of IPv6 adoption across our region. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:28, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > I urge the EC to rev

[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56

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 contradic

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? >> >> Please find the text of the proposal below. >> >> Regards, >> Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> >> ---

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

Hi Sanjeev, On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 22:23, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 7:07 AM Shaila Sharmin < > shaila.sharmin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Any resources assigned under this policy will not be announced in the >> global routing table (mistakes are exempted) and must be use

[sig-policy] Re: prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

t us for any further information in this regard. > > *With Kinds Regards* > *--* > *NIX KABIR* > > *Mobile Number # +880-1711435267* > *Skype# kabirrana5* > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:59 AM Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: &g

[sig-policy] Re: prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

sal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, >>>> tell the community about your situation. >>>>- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? >>>>- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >>>>- What changes could be ma

[sig-policy] Re: prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

Hi Chris, thanks for your feedback. On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 09:33, Christopher H wrote: > Hello Team, > > I support parts of this proposal, while I oppose others. > > In some economies (to use Australia as an example), there are significant > numbers of network operators. If an IXP were to start

[sig-policy] Re: prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

Hi Owen, > When we run out, IXPs can move to v6only. > "When we run out" - we still have a couple of million IPv4 address space. When some RIRs ran out, it created an open market. Transfers and M&A are still happening and continue to happen, let's wisely use and allocate the resources. > The p

[sig-policy] Re: prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

Hi Sanjeev bhai :) always good to hear from you. On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 13:48, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > Shaila, > > I oppose this, but not because of its details. > > We (Operators) cannot have it both ways. We have been screaming that IPv4 > is over, since at least 2011. Slicing it finer extends

[sig-policy] Re: prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

Hi Abhishek, > I oppose this proposal. Expansion of IXPs in terms of Membership and PoPs > depend upon factors of market dynamics like availability of ISPs, CDNs and > Telcos at a particular region where new IXP is to be planned and set up. > The proposal in no way promote or help in IXP expans

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-150: ROA/whois object with Private,,Reserved and Unallocated (reserved/available) Origin ASN

gt; Hi Aftar and all, > > > > I am interested on this topic coz we have similar cases where our customer > (using Private ASN) who advertised their own IP block to us (AS4637) via > eBGP. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > *Joseph Kenneth Arino* > > IP Eng

[sig-policy] Re: prop-151-v001: Restricting non hierarchical as-set

2 Feb 2023 at 10:13, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > Hi Satoru san, > I appreciate the feedback from the JP community. I do understand some of > the points you have raised, I will be doing a detailed technical > presentation during the Routing Security SIG to discuss most of the issues >

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-150: ROA/whois object with Private,,Reserved and Unallocated (reserved/available) Origin ASN

ve? > > > > Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available > at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-150 > > > > Regards, > > Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam > > Chairing the best SIG of all : The APNIC Policy SIG > > > > > > > ---

[sig-policy] Re: prop-151-v001: Restricting non hierarchical as-set

> at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-151 > > > > Regards, > > Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > > > > > prop-151-v001: Restricting non hierarchical as-set > > > > ---

[sig-policy] Re: Join the APNIC 55 Policy Proposals Webinar

Accept my apologies, I won't be joining the webinar due to other prior commitments. If anyone would like to understand more about prop-150 and prop-151 proposals please let me kn

[sig-policy] Re: prop-149-v001: Change of maximum delegation for less than /21 total IPv4 holdings

944 IPv4 addresses) > > > > Please note that the spreadsheet does not include IPv6/ASN only custodians > that holds zero IPv4. If they are eligible, the potential claimer will > increase by 882. > > > > I hope this information helps in this policy proposal discussion. &

[sig-policy] Re: prop-149-v001: Change of maximum delegation for less than /21 total IPv4 holdings

Hi Shubham, thanks for providing this data. though it doesn't answer my question. As per your proposal, please list. 1. How many existing members will be eligible for extra IPv4 allocation? 2. How far back to go in the past to start allocating the extra IPv4 addresses to members who received less

[sig-policy] Re: prop-150-v001: ROA/whois object with Private, Reserved and Unallocated (reserved/available) Origin ASN

nd, Shaila, and Anupam > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > prop-150-v001: ROA/whois object with Private, Reserved and Unallocated > > (reserved/available) Origin ASN

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v003: Historical Resources Management

Hi Jordi, > > > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > > a) Historical resources currently marked as reserved. > The custodians can claim historical resources that have been marked as > reserved within 12 months of the date they were marked as reserved. > After 12 months, these resources will be p

[sig-policy] Re: prop-149-v001: Change of maximum delegation for less than /21 total IPv4 holdings

I would request authors to share the modeling/expected growth chart for /21 delegation for "ALL" members with less than 2048 v4 addresses and when will we run out of v4? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 at 11:23, Bertrand Cherrier wrote: > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "pro

[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 18:13, Lu Heng wrote: > Aftab: > > Any of APNIC document can not be outside scope of law. > > Or you suggesting that clause will except APNIC from rule of law? > > On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 16:01, Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: > >> Hi Lu, >

[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

Hi Lu, On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 16:35, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi Andrew: > > No, I did not say the registrar has no power to enforce its own contract. > > I am saying the power in such a contract is very limited. > > And policies being made here can not dump out of legal limitation of a > contract. > I

[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

skipping the other bits.. If there is not a direct link from an LIR to a customer, then is not a > direct connectivity. So, in that case is not tied to a connectivity service. > > > I have a simple question, is this an example of leasing or not? 103.93.157.0/25 allocated to an entity with 2 ASNs

[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

veral times in this discussion which you have failed to respond to. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 8/9/22, 3:22, "Aftab Siddiqui" escribió: > > > > Hey

[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

Hey Jordi, On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 23:45, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: > Looking into English dictionaries and trying to make something specific to > our case. Maybe: > > > > Providing Internet Number Resources for a price (paid in any form) or even > fo

[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

Hi Jordi, Have you done any analysis to check how big a problem it is in the APNIC service region? for example check all (or may be a subset of) the allocations and assignments by the APNIC along with their allocated ASN(s) and see if those resources are originating from these ASN(s). Regards, A

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management

Hi Vivek, On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam wrote: > Hi Aftab, > > > > APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space > (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the > delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that > APNIC publishes thes

[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management

Hi Jordi, I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion. Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from AP

[sig-policy] Re: APNIC Nomination Review Committee - Proposal

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 15:45, Gaurav Kansal wrote: > > > On 25-Aug-2022, at 12:52, aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Gaurav, > Thanks for your comments > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:31, Gaurav Kansal wrote: > >> We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, >> like

[sig-policy] Re: APNIC Nomination Review Committee - Proposal

Hi Gaurav, Thanks for your comments On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:31, Gaurav Kansal wrote: > We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, > like max 2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 > years for next tenure and have a max limit on an individual

[sig-policy] Re: APNIC Nomination Review Committee - Proposal

be verified by the Secretariat. > > Again, for the last time I would suggest reading the document please. > And let voters decide. > > Voters will decide that ultimately because we are not changing the SIG guidelines OR APNIC bylaws so literally no one is taking that voting rights a

[sig-policy] APNIC Nomination Review Committee - Proposal

Hi Everyone, As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names

Re: [sig-policy] APNIC EC endorses policy proposals from APNIC 52

Hi Sunny, prop-138: Restricting AS-ID in ROA, that reached consensus at APNIC 52 > to be a guideline will also be implemented along with these four > proposals. > As per this link here [1], APNIC secretariat updated the guidelines on 6t

Re: [sig-policy] Community Feedback Required

[Cross posting it to Policy SIG list] Hi Everyone, We have only received 10 responses so far. Working on RPKI Road Map and any policy change depends on your feedback. https://forms.gle/vE7ojtnMjEyAcS7N7 Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 18:39, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: >

Re: [sig-policy] prop-141-v003: Change maximum delegation, size of IPv4 address from 512 ( /23 ) to 768 (/23+/24) addresses

> > > > Regards, > > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > > -- > > > > > prop-141-v003: Change maximum deleg

Re: [sig-policy] prop-141-v002: Change maximum delegation, size of IPv4 address from 512 ( /23 ) to 768 (/23+/24) addresses

-- > > > > prop-141-v002: Change maximum delegation size of IPv4 address from 512 > ( > /23 ) to 768 (/23+/24) addresses. > > > --- > > > >

Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-137-v001: IPv6 assignment for associate members

Hi Hiroki san, On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 09:19, Hiroki Kawabata wrote: > Aftab-san, > > Our position is neutral. At the point of promoting IPv6 deployment, we > support this. But, > > When "Go IPv6" criteria (it probably means 9.2.1. in policy document) was > implemented, > we were expecting to us

Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-137-v001: IPv6 assignment for associate members

more >> effective? >> >> Information about this proposal is appended below and also available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-137 >> >> Regards, >> Bertrand and Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> --

Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-138-v001: Restricting AS-ID in ROA

XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=wbpAlgDbnl7%2FAPD5c2odGyVRKC83KeO%2F4T9BrgF9U%2FE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Regards, > > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > --- > > &g

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 > w

Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois role object - Proposed changes

Hi Anupam bhai, 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. > I totally agree that country information (Country Code) is im

Re: [sig-policy] Abuse Role Object

Hi Jordi, I think we need to get clear responses from the secretariat if “anything” > requires a policy update, or it is just implementation details that they > can adjust without working out a policy proposal. > > I have the same opinion. > > > > > In my opinion, the policy text + the explanati

[sig-policy] Abuse Role Object

Hi Everyone, As some of you have already seen the discussion [1] on twitter, started by Fakrul. Just sharing the problem here. As part of some of the additional request/reference in prop-125 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132 new version email draft (003)

unce by some unrelated third party? What is today's >> process? >> > They certainly have processes in place, which ofcourse not working. This is not the first time I have raised this question. I raised it in multiple meetings and answer was same "we are trying". Here i

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

Hi Job, > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:52:13AM +0600, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote: > > A new version of the proposal "prop-132: AS0 for Bogons" > > has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-13

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

IC fails to timely > >> update the AS0 ROAs, this will effect the service delivery and/or > >> network downtime. > >> > >> I request APNIC to provide a detailed review of this proposal from a > >> service and legal perspective so the community can better understand > >

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

> > If these consequences are included in the proposal, when someone forgets > to pay their bill and their resources get block by most of the Internet, > then no one can claim it wasn't considered. > > Thanks. > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:07 PM Owen DeLong wrote

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 t

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. >> >

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

AS0 ROA. > Thats absolutely fine we can agree to disagree but let’s have a clear understanding of the policy. > J Khan > > -- > *From:* Aftab Siddiqui > *Sent:* Tuesday, 27 August 2019 6:16 PM > *To:* Owen DeLong > *Cc:* Javed Khan ; Policy SIG <

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

Hi Owen, > I don’t think you actually addressed his concern… > Well, let me try again then :) > On Aug 26, 2019, at 17:17 , Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: > > Hi Javed, > I understand your concern, let me try to explain. > > AS-0 ROA is an attestation by the holder

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

the > implementation, if this proposal reaches consensus. > > > Kind regards > Javed Khan > MSCE and CCSP > > > -- > *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net < > sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> on behalf of David Farmer <

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

ve? >> >> Please find the text of the proposal below. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> -- >> >> prop-132-v

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

uent update. > > Owen > > > On Aug 21, 2019, at 16:02 , Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:10 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”, >> > > Why is that? > RFC3871 <https://to

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

> Yes, the policy is strictly talking about "unallocated address space" in APNIC free pool. > > Owen > > > On Aug 15, 2019, at 17:15 , Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > Just to give you an example, all unallocated address space from 103/8 are > under A

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

; On 8/15/2019 5:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > >> >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather >>> than by an RIR from what you quoted. >>>

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

any > particular RIRs jurisdiction. As such, I was under the impression from the > policy proposal that the intent was for APNIC to issue AS0 ROAs for global > bogons. > > Owen > > > On Aug 15, 2019, at 15:12, Andrew Dul wrote: > > > On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Sidd

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Andrew, > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather >> than by an RIR from what you quoted. >> > > Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA > has nothing to do with resources al

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

unallocated address space within APNIC > > Owen > > > On Aug 14, 2019, at 21:58 , Aftab Siddiqui > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > Thanks for your response, sorry for replying late though. > > IMO, IETF has done its part already. > > RFC6483 defines the term “

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

; Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > -- > > prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons > > -- > > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui >

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

t; On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > > > Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. > > > > First, neither the current version nor the proposed > > version refer to members a

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to >> see how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”. >> >> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to >> take my NIR suggestion. >> >> Owen &g

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

Hi Owen, On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. > > First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to > members at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one > change I think should be made there

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders. Secondly, when you start mentioning to

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: prop-130-v001: Modification of transfer policies

If I may ask the author. - Explain the problem statement. - Can you provide an example where this "unclear policy of M&A" created a problem? - Did you ask Secretariat if this is actually a problem? Did they provide any stats? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:59 PM Sumon Ah

[sig-policy] IANA Recovered Space

Dear APNIC Secretariat, Can you please confirm if this is what APNIC got from IANA recovered pool in 2018. 160.238.0.0/24 APNIC 2018-03 192.26.110.0/24 APNIC 2018-03 192.75.137.0/24 APNIC 2018-03 192.135.99.0/24 APNIC 2018-03 192.145.228.0/23 APNIC 2018-03 192.156.144.0/24 APNIC 2018-03 192.156.22

[sig-policy] Data Request

Dear APNIC Secretariat. Can you please provide the following data. - How many new members in the last 12 months only applied for /23 or /24 - How many existing members holding /23 or /24 came back and applied for more resources (as they can apply for up to /22). Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui *

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-127 announcement : Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address, pool to a /23

; >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-127 >> >> Regards >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> -- >> >> prop-127-v001: Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address >> pool to a /23 >&

Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

14/assets/prop-114-v001.txt > > Regards, > > Jordi > > > > > > > > *De: * en nombre de Aftab Siddiqui < > aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> > *Fecha: *jueves, 24 de enero de 2019, 2:28 > *Para: *Policy SIG > *Asunto: *Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multi

Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

Hi Jordi, We updated this requirement after a year-long discussion within the community. It doesn't enforce you to multi-home but suggests you should in the future. I don't see this as a roadblock in receiving PI address space. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:14 AM Bertran

Re: [sig-policy] prop-129-v001: Abolish Waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests

not clear? >- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more >effective? > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-129 > > Regards > > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >

Re: [sig-policy] prop-120: waiting list management

[image: image.png] × This is what APNIC got from the recovered pool yesterday. This will serve 2 members on the waiting list since Jan 2017. After that, the waiting list will be of 426 members. We need something close to /13 (or /14+/15+/16) to clear the existing waiting list (assuming that all me

[sig-policy] Fwd: Call for volunteers to participate in ASO Review Working Group

can join us at the ASO-Review consultation session [2] [1] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-aso-review [2] https://2018.apricot.net/program/schedule/#/day/9/aso-review-consultation -- Forwarded message - From: Aftab Siddiqui Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 19:13 Subject

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

Hi Alex, > 1. Problem statement > --- > > Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in > the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep > 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Guangliang, How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017. On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan wrote: > Hi Sanjeev, > > > > The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years > count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868.

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

*Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1* Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion after reading the data. On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 13:04 Lu Heng wrote: > My reads to the data shows exact needs for the policy. > > So don't blame data. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

> > I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion. > > If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then there is nothing I can do. The information was good enough for me. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui > wrote

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

fer request. We have a procedure to respond to a > > correspondence within two working days. > > > > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as > > soon as I have the information. > > > > thanks, > > > > George &g

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

<https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/> 3.2 (d) The Member must comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents. So IMO (though I'm not a lawyer but I watch Suits if that counts), if an APNIC member is currently leasing IP

Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG

Dear APNIC Sec, Can you share some stats: - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months? - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation? - How many transfer request you are receiving every week? - How long does it take to process a transfer request? - Does it create any

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. > > And? > It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able > or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or > sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for > full c

Re: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

rom > the account holder. Otherwise, it is not possible for the APNIC > Secretariat to disclose individual account and request information on > the public mailing list. > > > George Kuo > APNIC > > On 25/2/17 10:04 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > Interesting. > > &

Re: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

; hassle, removing the need base justification just simplifies the whole > process, making the transfer faster and smoother. > > > David Hilario > > *IP Manager* > > *Larus Cloud Service Limited* > > p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918> m: +359 89 764 1784 > &l

Re: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

NIC Hostmasters > often ask for more support documents before approve large transfers. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Guangliang > > == > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com] >

Re: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region

Hi Guangliang, Do you have any stats on rejection rate due to weak requirement justifications? On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 at 18:34 David Hilario wrote: > Dear Benny, > > Thank you for asking for clarifications. > > This proposal is for any transfer, within in or out of region. > > The need based part i

Re: [sig-policy] prop-117-v001: Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion

ber returns 103/8 address space then it shouldn't be re-allocated through above procedure. On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 at 19:20 藤崎智宏 wrote: > Hi Aftab, > > 2017-01-29 20:54 GMT+09:00 Aftab Siddiqui : > > > >> > >> 1. Problem statement > >> &g

Re: [sig-policy] prop-117-v001: Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion

> 1. Problem statement > > APNIC currently makes delegations from two IPv4 pools. These are the > 103/8 (Final /8) pool and the non-103/8 IPv4 Recovered pool. > > With current policy, all returned address space, including 103/8 blocks, > will be merged into the IPv4 Recovered p

Re: [sig-policy] Regarding Return Address spaces from 103/8 Pool

Its better to wait for the updated version of prop-116 which hopefully will address most of the issues raised here and were raised during APNIC42. Tomohiro San agreed to come up with a solution so its just a matter of few more weeks :) On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 23:45 Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote: > > De

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

> > Wrong, they all have /22 from final /8 and another /22 from IANA > recovered pool. > > Nope: > https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/get-ip-addresses-asn/unmet-ipv4-requests Yes and this waiting list doesn't tell you if they are all new members (holding only 103/8 resources) or old members (pre 2011 r

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

Hi Elvis, Even though I also don't support the policy as it stands but... > I do not like any proposal that will restrict some of the rights a 'new' > member has as compared to the rights of a member from pre-2011. > Why not? If you are late to the party then there are no free drinks for you.. sim

Re: [sig-policy] New Policy Proposal prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block

prop-116 is similar to prop-106 with few cosmetic changes so it would be good to review the old discussion. > I wonder if there can be better way to prevent such kind of transfer. > > Yes, there is a better way, scrap prop-105 and stop handing over additional /22 for no reason and add the recover

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

> > The NRO NC election process a similar requirement. > Individuals who are on site and are registered for either the > current APNIC Conference they are attending, or have been registered for at > least one previous APNIC Conference since APNIC 10, are entitled to one > vote. > > https://www.apni

Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois Database Accuracy

of Whois database accuracy specially the > exchange of information for cyber security mitigation . if community have > mixed comments then we can execute this as pilot project specially on IRT > object or single country . > > > > > > *Regards / Jahangir * > > On Tue

Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois Database Accuracy

> > I also support Gaurab’s idea to tag the authoritative of account holder. > Besides i would like to add one point with Gaurab's idea ;* Can we send > verification message through mail to account holder's corporate and > technical contact person by quarterly/half a year/yearly basis?* > > if one

[sig-policy] Contact Validation

Hi, Reference to the discussion during policy-sig, ARIN's POC validation details are available at: https://www.arin.net/resources/request/poc.html#validation Thanks -- Best Wishes, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

I believe, "pushed back to mailing list for discussion" and "returned the proposal to authors for further consideration" are two different things. *From Transcript:* So I need to decide how to proceed with this proposal itself. Let me push back this proposal to the mailing list

Re: [sig-policy] The status of APNIC's IPv4 resources

> 2. Status of IANA Recovered pool (non-103) >- Will run out in next 7 months+ >- IANA may allocate additional space in every 6 months >- This pool will repeatedly ‘run-out’ as IANA delegates more space and > it is distributed by APNIC >- May need policy to deal with temporary exhau

Re: [sig-policy] 1.2.3.4

+1 > Please stop attempting to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. > And I don't want to renumber my home network :) [its friday] Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-po

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

What I can recall, the objection was more members join AMM rather Policy-SIG therefore the consensus at Policy-SIG is not actual consensus of the members at the event. I hope secretariat can suggest what other issues were registered. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Ske

  1   2   >