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

We can agree to disagree. This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy (original 2 year limit) was intended to target. The expansion of this to a 5 year limit, while excessive IMHO, seems to likely be community reaction to just this sort of behavior, so I have no probl

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

. It is 1% of > the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123 members > received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members received > more two ranges. > > > > Kind regards, > > Guangliang > > == > >

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

d concur with your 24 month period as > being more reasonable. As I stated previously in reply to Skeeve. The statistics don’t bear out the problem I thought would exist, so I’m no longer objecting to this proposal. However, I don’t grant the premise of your argument above. Owen > > Regar

Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

Aside from the question of examples or not examples, I offer the following suggestion… The wording is quite awkward and difficult to parse. So much so, I am not 100% certain of the intent. I offer the following suggestion for a rewrite hoping that I have captured the intent accurately: ===

Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

h as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment.” > > We want to make sure that ISPs, typically offering broadband services, aren’t > end-users, as they should be LIRs. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delo

Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

ar policy that is understood by all who must live with and/or implement it. Owen > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> > Fecha: miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2018, 4:17 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

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

> On Feb 21, 2019, at 22:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the inputs, > > If we keep “it holds previously-allocated provider independent address > space”, then it means an organization, for example, deploying only IPv6, will > not be abl

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-version 5: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

I express opposition to this policy change. There seems to me a misunderstanding of the term sub assignments in the proposal. A subassignment is an issuance of a portion of your prefix to an external third party recorded at the RIR level or provided in a public database (e.g. whois, rwhois, or

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

t think we should do either). Owen > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> > Fecha: viernes, 22 de febrero de 2019, 19:00 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>> > CC: Satoru

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

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 is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs are technically ISP

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

perspective please jump in and share your > thoughts. > > Sincerely, > > Sumon > > > > 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

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/> @apnicdg > > On 9 May 2019, at 19:53, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote: > >> >> Thank you very much Aftab and Owen for your constructive feedback. We will >> definitely consider those views. >>

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

today are in-scope, to be left out. Agreed. However, in my view, your proposal is not less restrictive, just more verbose. Owen > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > El 11/5/19 1:27, "Owen DeLong" escribió: > > That’s not more generic, Jordi, i

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

derstanding. >> >> We have a recent experience of policies (resource hijacking is a policy >> violation) being declared out-of-scope in ARIN by the AC. I know the PDP >> is very different, but let’s make sure we don’t have this situation >> replicated in other AP

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

IMHO, while I’m perfectly fine with APNIC administering this and maintaining the ROAs, etc., I believe that the decision to allocate AS0 to this purpose and documentation of this intent should be done through the IETF and be documented in an STD or RFC. I support the idea, but I believe the pro

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

esources." > > Once allocated to RIRs then IANA can't issue any ROA (they are not doing it > to any resource anyway) but there is unallocated address space with RIRs, > they can issue AS0 ROAs. > > I hope this clarifies your point of IETF's involvement

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

bogons. Owen > On Aug 15, 2019, at 15:12, Andrew Dul wrote: > > >> On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: >> Hi Owen, >> >>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by

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

AS0 ROAs for all those unallocated addresses. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM Owen DeLong <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > Since we are talking about bigots, other than Unallocated space in RIR > inventory, I’m not su

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

> On Aug 21, 2019, at 16:02 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:10 AM Owen DeLong <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”, > > Why is that? > RFC3871 <https://tools.ietf.org/h

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

Most, if not all RIRs have a process for address recycling with appropriate hold-down times and grace periods for the resource holder to act to preserve their claim on the resources. It seems to me that lining this up with those procedures can be left as an operational manner at the discretion

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

I think the current text isn’t really a problem because reasonable people apply a reasonable interpretation of intent rather than the literal meaning. The proposal brings literal meaning more in line with well understood intent. While I don’t believe there is an actual problem to solve here, I

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

Aftab, I don’t think you actually addressed his concern… > 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 of a prefix that the prefix > described in the ROA, and any more specifi

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

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:19 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > Hi Javed, > > I think you’re getting something wrong. > > Policies aren’t there so APNIC can verify “everything” to “every” member. > This will be impossible. > > Policies are there so everybody know the rules, and try thei

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

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > Hi Javed, > > I don’t agree, let me explain why. > > The current process only talks about the meeting and the chairs have clearly > indicated that they take in consideration the list and the confer. Anyone > from the communi

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

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 03:16 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > 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 conce

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

customers. > > > So I am not in favor of asking the RIR to create AS0 ROA. > > Thats absolutely fine we can agree to disagree but let’s have a clear > understanding of the policy. What makes you think he does not understand the policy? Owen > > > J Khan &

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 <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > >> On Aug 28, 2019, at 13:44 , Aftab Siddiqui > <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >&g

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 c

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

Thanks, Sunny! This is very helpful. Given the potential for this to produce outages, I’d like to propose that APNIC consider an additional step in the process. I think there should be a way for a resource holder (or former resource holder) to log in to the APNIC web site and trigger a suspens

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

I took the liberty of reformatting the message into a consistent font and size. > On Sep 9, 2019, at 02:41 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > > El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" mailto:o...@delong.com>> > escribió: > > &g

Re: [sig-policy] New version - prop-133-v002: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

I agree… I don’t think there is any benefit to this policy and I oppose adding IPv6 to inter-RIR transfers of any form. Owen > On Feb 16, 2020, at 20:20 , Tsurumaki, Satoru wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum. > > I would like to share key feed

Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

Assigned address space isn’t generally delegated to LIRs,… It’s generally delegated to end-users. Address space delegated to LIRs may then be reassigned by the LIR to itself for internal purposes. Unless there’s a case where an LIR is receiving an assignment instead of an allocation, I think we

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

I have no strong opinion positive or negative towards the proposal overall. I do oppose going from /23 to 0.75 /22. If we’re going to do this, let’s just go from /23 to /22 and keep things on prefix boundaries. Owen > On Sep 7, 2021, at 15:02 , Bertrand Cherrier wrote: > > Dear SIG members, >

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

Opposed. Not in favor of moving to non-prefix aligned allocations from an RIR. Owen > On Sep 14, 2021, at 20:37 , Bertrand Cherrier > wrote: > > Dear SIG members, > > A new version of the proposal "prop-141-v003: Change maximum delegation > size of IPv4 address from 512 ( /23 ) to 768 (/23+

Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure

Thinking about this a little more, it seems to me that there's no really good argument for doing this. The stated problem (DNS Anycast Servers) can easily be solved using either an IPv6 subnet anycast address, an IPv6 anycast address, or an IPv6 multicast address. The unstated problem (figurin

Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure

clients of their local DNS resolver to configure with DNS resolution system with 1.2.3.4 as a recursive resolver. > > regards, > > Geoff > > > > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 7:15 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Thinking about this a little more, it seems to me that the

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

te in his mail, only /29 is reserved for > organizations in earlyer allcation address block. Main purpose of this > policy intend to utilize those address, which will be kept unused. > > Yorus Sincerely, > -- > Tomohiro Fujisaki > > From: Owen DeLong > Subject: Re: [si

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

The more I think about it, I just don’t see an advantage to this proposal. I’m all for relaxing the utilization criteria, but if you’re going to do that, relax it to the nibble boundary, not some bizarre arbitrary point like /29. Owen On Jan 31, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > Hi D

Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure

On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I understand the cost issues involved. However, the RPKI ROAs and the >> registration of the non-exclusive users of the prefix is what >> distinguished this from a special-purpose allocation that needs IETF >> Review to be made. If you remove th

Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure

> i am seriously concerned about leakage, just as in all other 1918 space. > and this is just more 1918 space, you could use 192.168.42.0/24 just as > well. > While I am not concerned about the leakage, I agree that this is basically a small expansion of RFC-1918 which appears to be justified lar

Re: [sig-policy] Policy documentation feedback requested

I support option 2. It is hard enough trying to follow the regional policy differences as an international network. At least being able to find each regions policies in a single document would be a monumental improvement. Owen On Feb 16, 2014, at 21:33 , Adam Gosling wrote: > Dear Colleagues

Re: [sig-policy] Policy documentation feedback requested

R ASN transfers > Mergers, acquisitions > > > > > > > -- > Adam Gosling > Senior Policy Specialist email: a...@apnic.net > APNIC sip: a...@voip.apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net phone:+6

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Regarding Transfers of Legacy Space

Legacy should be different. Owen > On Feb 25, 2014, at 14:07, Skeeve Stevens > wrote: > > Hi All, > > I've been contacted by a holder of some small (not relevant) legacy space who > was inquiring about selling it. > > But, they are not an APNIC member (or a Non-Member). > > Referring to:

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Regarding Transfers of Legacy Space

ue Q? X? Z? APNIC? Or all of the above? What happens to R? What happens to Z? What happens to the registry records when this comes to light? Owen > On Feb 25, 2014, at 14:18, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Legacy should be different. > > Owen > > >> On Feb 25, 2014, at 14:07,

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Regarding Transfers of Legacy Space

gt; > Regards, > Mike Burns > IPTrading.com > > - Original Message - > From: Owen DeLong > To: Skeeve Stevens > Cc: apnic-t...@apnic.net ; sig-pol...@apnic.net SIG List > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:03 PM > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Policy Regarding Transfers o

Re: [sig-policy] Returned to SIG: prop-110: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure

On Mar 5, 2014, at 00:09 , Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Masato Yamanishi > wrote: > Is there anyone who want to continue this proposal? > > I read the Transcript, and saw the comment made on the inadvisability of > 1.2.3.4/24 being used as a DNS resolver. I am n

Re: [sig-policy] Returned to SIG: prop-110: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure

On Mar 9, 2014, at 23:52 , Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> And any person deciding to announce 1.2.3.0/24 to the open network, would >> have to face a massive traffic storm anyway. prop-109 by Geoff Huston >> ment

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

Even the new version is still a relatively bad idea, IMHO. While I support allowing anyone who has a /29 reservation from the /23(s) allocated to the LIRs in the early days being able to simply ask for and receive that, I would much rather see the /12 space handed out in nibble aligned chunks t

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:07 AM, HENDERSON MICHAEL, MR > wrote: > However, I understand the current situation is that the ‘legacy’ IPv6 address > allocation was for smaller allocations within blocks on /29 boundaries, if I > read the Prop

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Thank you for you comment and let me clarify your one point. > > On 2014/09/02 16:07, "HENDERSON MICHAEL, MR" > wrote: > >> I do not favour IPv6 allocations on “non-nibble” boundaries, I believe that >> allocations ought to

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

The US DOD does not have a /13. I do not know why this myth continues to propagate. Owen On Sep 15, 2014, at 2:11 PM, HENDERSON MIKE, MR wrote: > I do not agree with the contention that allocations larger than /28 - e.g. > /24 , /20 - will be "too huge". > > In my view there are three fact

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

I remain opposed so long as we limit this to /29 for everyone. I accept the idea of issuing (up to) the reserved /29s from the non-sparse allocations. However, I do not support: 1. unrestricted issuance of /29s to every organization regardless of needs. 2. Use of /29s

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

Yes, I still feel it misses my point completely. I have no problem with expanding the existing reservations which are bounded at /29 to /29. I don’t want to see us move the default allocation in the sparse allocation world to larger than /32. Larger than /32 should require additional justifica

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

;> Regards >> >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong >> Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2014 6:16 a.m. >> To: "(Tomohi

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

not > say 'more than more' (/28s instead of /29s). Perhaps it is because you are not technical and have not had an operational role and experience. Owen > > cheers, > elvis > > On 18/09/14 09:35, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Absolutely… That is current policy in th

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

of the size of the allocation. > > I find it surprising that you oppose to a policy proposal that would allow > members of APNIC to use more IPv6 addresses just because the policy does not > say 'more than more' (/28s instead of /29s). > > cheers, > elvis >

Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)

DNSSSEC. I do not really understand that part (sorry, I am not very > | > technical). If it's fat-fingering you are talking about, that can happen > | > regardless of the size of the allocation. > | > > | > I find it surprising that you oppose to a policy proposal tha

Re: [sig-policy] Resignation as Policy SIG chair

Skeeve. First: +1 to what you have said below, except. In the past (rapidly becoming the distant past), Randy provided a lot of service to this and several other internet communities. He was a talented engineer and helped to solve many problems. There was a time when his commitment to the comm

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

I support this policy change as written. Owen > On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" > has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meetin

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> > 3. Situation in other regions > - > > ARIN: > It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN For clarity, ARIN requires either Multihoming _OR_ a Unique Routing Policy. > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > >

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space

I will again oppose this as written. I would much rather see policy deliver nibble-boundary based allocations. I would rather see such organizations issued new /28s than expand these /32s into /29s. Owen > On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > > Dear SIG members > > The prop

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > | Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015 4:05 p.m. > | To: Masato Yamanishi > | Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > | Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand > expansion of IPv6 address alloc

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

> On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson wrote: > > On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton > wrote: > There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. > > 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation > 2) it doesn't support all

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

> On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson > wrote: > > On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton > wrote: > There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. > > 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... "We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

www.theispguy.com > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from >> hostmaster... >> >> "We don't

Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what implementation would likely cost. First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary situation. I’m not sure it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it. Second, I’m wondering if there’s any

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 13:34 , Dean Pemberton wrote: > > Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing > policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, > but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 13:00 , Dean Pemberton wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > >> Q1. Is the benefit larger than the concern or not? > > What benefit? I'm not seeing one here. > As far as I can see there is nothing stopping an LIR with one of these > histo

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

Actually, after seeing the clarifications provided to Dean, I now oppose this proposal as written. Owen > On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:21 , Masato Yamanishi wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without > any negative comment. > Isn't t

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your >>> routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

regards, >> >> Guangliang >> = >> >> -Original Message- >> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton >> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM >> To:

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho wrote: > > All, > > I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s > trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet > the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since > they will re

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:46 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it is > to do with flexibility. > > I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without > being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenien

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you. > > You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they > aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for > changing to multi-homing, or away from it, wit

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer wrote: > > On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote: > ... >> There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN >> they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then >> that is against current policy and I'm ok with

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

r.com/theispguy> ; blog: > www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Owen DeLong <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Far

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

that they need one and be able to > get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their > upstream connectivity at any particular time. > > > ...Skeeve > > Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker > v4Now - an eintellego Networks service > ske...@v4now.com &

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

Usman, since an AS is defined as “A collection of prefixes with a common routing policy”, what would you use one for if not to connect to other autonomous systems? If you are connecting to a single other autonomous system, then, arguably it is impossible for your prefixes to have a distinct rout

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate. The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, I

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

ato Yamanishi wrote: > > Owen and Usman, > > In following comments, did you consider we are discussing "public" AS numbers? > Since we are discussing "public" AS, we should have some kind of > justifications why it should be globally unique. > > Regards, &

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

t may qualify some > usecases that private AS may also work. > So, what is the definition or understanding for "unique routing policy" in > ARIN? > > Masato Yamanishi > > Feb 26, 2015 3:14 PM、Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> > のメッセージ: > >> Yes

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

; > Cheers, > Jessica Shen > > > >> -邮件原件- >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42 >> 收件人: Mark Tinka >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >>

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani wrote: > > On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote: >> I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs >> should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) >> regardless of whether they are single hom

Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

gt; But in order to start discussing about what is good solution where we > can get detailed information about assignment of address, I thought > whois DB is possible one to choose. > > Regards, > > On 2015/02/25 2:11, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I don’t believe the proposal

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development process. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi wrote: > > Dear SIG member

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

lt;http://facebook.com/v4now> ; > <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve > <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> > twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: > www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> > > IP Addre

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

+1… I’m with Dean… Still opposed. Let’s keep needs basis in place, please. I’m all for removing the requirement to multihome, but not the requirement to actually need the addresses for an operational network. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:09 , Dean Pemberton wrote: > > Just to clarify. > >

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

ntellego Networks service >> ske...@v4now.com <mailto:ske...@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com >> <http://www.v4now.com/> >> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve <> >> facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; >>

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

y.com/> > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > +1… I’m with Dean… Still opposed. > > Let’s keep needs basis in place, please. I’m all for removing the requiremen

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

; facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; > <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve > <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> > twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: > www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> >

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 18:31 , Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 3/5/15 2:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > >> So, if I wanted to put a connection online in Singapore, and only >> connected to one upstream, but also connect to Megaport, or >> Pac

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-114v003

That’s text I can support. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 21:27 , Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I support this. > > - -gaurab > > > On 3/5/15 4:50 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: >> In this text, the suggested guidelines have been removed to be >> r

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-113v003

I support this as written. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 20:50 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > The only addition to this text was the clarification of demonstrated need. > It is not being removed and will remain in place as below. > > "Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms must dem

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-114v003

I think this is an improvement, but I can support either way. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 21:54 , Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens > wrote: > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > > An organisation is elig

Re: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24

We’re talking about a single /24. Use it for whatever research value it has and then put it out to pasture along with the rest of this antiquated addressing. My $0.02. Owen > On May 21, 2015, at 12:45 , David Huberman > wrote: > > Dean, <> > > Thank you for your excellent reply. > > I a

Re: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24

pace, rather than trying to shut them down. > > Paul > > > > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNICd...@apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @ap

Re: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24

. Owen > On May 22, 2015, at 10:21 , Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > On 23 May 2015, at 2:13 am, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> I find it interesting amid calls for “don’t rearrange the deck chairs” that >> you single out my message as the one at

Re: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24

> On May 22, 2015, at 20:42 , Michel Py > wrote: > >> David Conrad wrote : >> In my (early) experience at APNIC, there was significant interest in >> "vanity" IP addresses, >> to the point where folks created multiple companies in order to get >> particular addresses >> when APNIC was allocat

Re: [sig-policy] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria to be discussed at APNIC 40

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 02:34 , Masato Yamanishi wrote: > > Dear SIG members > > ## It is NOT new version, just a reminder that this proposal will be > discussed at APNIC 40 > > Version 3 of this proposal was posted to the mailing list during > APNIC 39. The proposal did not reach consensus and

  1   2   >