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

2019-09-26 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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 is the transcript from APNIC46. (vogons = bogons

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

2019-08-30 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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: > >

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

2019-08-29 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
gt; >> 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 > >> the implementa

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

2019-08-28 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> 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

2019-08-28 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

2019-08-28 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

2019-08-28 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
. > 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 < > sig

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

2019-08-27 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

2019-08-26 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
mentation, 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 < > far...@u

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

2019-08-22 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
ind the text of the proposal below. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> -- >> >> prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

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

2019-08-21 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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 <http

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

2019-08-21 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> 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

2019-08-15 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
; 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

2019-08-15 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
articular 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 Siddiqui wrote

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

2019-08-15 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

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

2019-08-15 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
located 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 “Disav

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

2019-08-14 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
ertrand, Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------ > > prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons > > -- > > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui >aftab.s

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-14 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

2019-05-09 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> 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

2019-05-09 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-05 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

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

2019-03-15 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
If I may ask the author. - Explain the problem statement. - Can you provide an example where this "unclear policy of M" 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

[sig-policy] IANA Recovered Space

2019-02-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

[sig-policy] Data Request

2019-02-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

2019-02-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
;> 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

2019-01-24 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
sets/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: Multihomin

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

2019-01-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

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

2019-01-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
? >- 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

2018-03-02 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
[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

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

2018-02-14 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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 <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> Date: Mon,

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

2018-01-29 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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]

2018-01-29 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi Guangliang, How many M 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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:03 Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> 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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> > 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 <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com&

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

2017-08-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
a transfer 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 >

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

2017-08-18 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
c/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 addresses then they are in breach of the mem

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

2017-08-17 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> 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

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

2017-02-25 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
ave the permission from > 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: > > Int

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

2017-02-25 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
aster and smoother. > > > David Hilario > > *IP Manager* > > *Larus Cloud Service Limited* > > p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918> m: +359 89 764 1784 > <+359%2089%20764%201784> > f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068> > a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tow

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

2017-01-29 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
space then it shouldn't be re-allocated through above procedure. On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 at 19:20 藤崎智宏 <fujis...@syce.net> wrote: > Hi Aftab, > > 2017-01-29 20:54 GMT+09:00 Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > >> 1. Problem statement > >

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

2017-01-29 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> 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

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

2016-11-24 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

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

2016-09-05 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> > 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. > >

Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois Database Accuracy

2016-06-27 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Jahangir * > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> 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 >>&g

Re: [sig-policy] APNIC Whois Database Accuracy

2016-06-21 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
> > 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

2016-02-24 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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

2015-09-14 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
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] 1.2.3.4

2015-05-22 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
+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 * ___

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

2015-02-26 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi Izumi, Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handle ASN requests in JPNIC. w.r.t JPNIC, do they ask for the details of those ASN (along with contact details) with whom applicant is planning to multi-home in future? Do they have any mechanism to check the authenticity

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

2015-02-26 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time

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

2015-02-26 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with

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

2015-02-24 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Thanks Guangliang for the update, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as

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

2015-02-23 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi Dean This proposal seems to advocates two things: The removal of any requirement for organisations to be multihomed Yes, The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation. Not exactly. The proposed wording states: Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations

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

2015-02-03 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi Dean, Thanks for raising the question. Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application

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

2015-02-03 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi Randy, i liked dean's question. is there actually a problem? have folk who really needed asns not been able to get one under current policy? Even, I liked Dean's question and would like to see what data hostmasters have on this. randy, thinking of reintroducing the no more policies

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

2014-01-31 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi David, Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but by raising the default from /32 to /29, you are raising the barrier to entry for small LIRs. I believe APNIC's fees are based on your allocation size. Yes, its a logarithmic function, but it still raises the fees. So a small LIR that doesn't