Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition
Hi again … When I wrote this proposal, I was looking for all the uses of the complete policy manual for end-user, end-site, etc. And I was sure that I didn’t miss anything. So, could you point to what specific sections in the policy manual I’ve missed, so I can see if a new version can fix that? Regarding the other comment, I’ve not used, and is not used in the policy manual, any term related to “payment”. On the other way around, since a few years ago, we already included “who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities)” to ensure that we are covering situations where you have “any kind of partner”, be it a business, a “sister organization”, etc., without restricting the relationship to a “business paid customer”. So, I think that’s was already resolved and this proposal is not changing that. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.. I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-140, based on a meeting we organised on 25th Aug to discuss these proposals. In addition to "end site" and “end-user," "customer" is scattered throughout the policy document. An opinion was expressed that it is necessary to organize the overall consistency. (comment details) - The revisions in the current proposal seems not to be sufficient. There seems to be a mixture of "end user" as a general term and "end user" as defined in 2.10. - Isn't the concept of "customer" who "pays" for the numbered resources inappropriate for the policy? Partners who are not customers should also be treated as customers. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2021年8月13日(金) 8:59 Bertrand Cherrier : Dear SIG members, The proposal "prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 on Thursday, 16 September 2021. https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4 We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM. The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal 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 made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is appended below and also available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-140 Regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --- prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition --- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) 1. Problem statement Section 2.9 was introduced with an IPv4 mind-set and doesn’t fully accommodate IPv6 deployments and members that may have multiple sites in case of assignments. Even if this text has evolved in several RIRs, the previous changes were imperfect, and thru this evolution in other RIRs, it was obvious that we missed some aspects such as “multiple locations” being different than “end-sites”. Further to that, sometimes it becomes confusing the fact that there is not a formal definition of end-user. Finally, 10.1.4.1. is slightly updated, just to make sure that assignments are considered per end-site, not member. Note that those changes are basically editorial clarifications because do not imply actual changes on what policies already allow. 2. Objective of policy change - Ensuring that both end-site and end-user are defined in a more accurate way. 3. Situation in other regions - Other RIRs already updated the policies on this regard. 4. Proposed policy solution --- Actual text: 2.9. End site An end site is defined as an end-user (subscriber) who has a business relationship with a service provider that involves: • that service provider assigning address space to the end-user • that service provider providing transit service for the end-user to other sites • that service provider carrying the end-user's traffic • that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the end-user's assignment 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment … The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. The considerations of Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site" must be followed if multiple /48s are requested. "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests". Proposed text: 2.9. End-site An End-Site is defined as the location of an End-User who has
Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition
ear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.. I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-140, based on a meeting we organised on 25th Aug to discuss these proposals. In addition to "end site" and “end-user," "customer" is scattered throughout the policy document. An opinion was expressed that it is necessary to organize the overall consistency. (comment details) - The revisions in the current proposal seems not to be sufficient. There seems to be a mixture of "end user" as a general term and "end user" as defined in 2.10. - Isn't the concept of "customer" who "pays" for the numbered resources inappropriate for the policy? Partners who are not customers should also be treated as customers. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2021年8月13日(金) 8:59 Bertrand Cherrier : > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition" has been > sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 > on Thursday, 16 September 2021. > > https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4 > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing > list before the OPM. > > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important > part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to > express your views on the proposal: > >- Do you support or oppose this proposal? >- Does this proposal 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 made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > Information about this proposal is appended below and also available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-140 > > Regards, > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > --- > > prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition > > --- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) > > > 1. Problem statement > > Section 2.9 was introduced with an IPv4 mind-set and doesn’t fully > accommodate IPv6 deployments and members that may have multiple sites in > case of assignments. > > Even if this text has evolved in several RIRs, the previous changes were > imperfect, and thru this evolution in other RIRs, it was obvious that we > missed some aspects such as “multiple locations” being different than > “end-sites”. > > Further to that, sometimes it becomes confusing the fact that there is > not a formal definition of end-user. > > Finally, 10.1.4.1. is slightly updated, just to make sure that > assignments are considered per end-site, not member. > > Note that those changes are basically editorial clarifications because > do not imply actual changes on what policies already allow. > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > - > Ensuring that both end-site and end-user are defined in a more accurate > way. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > - > Other RIRs already updated the policies on this regard. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > Actual text: > 2.9. End site > An end site is defined as an end-user (subscriber) who has a business > relationship with a service provider that involves: > • that service provider assigning address space to the end-user > • that service provider providing transit service for the end-user to > other sites > • that service provider carrying the end-user's traffic > • that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that > contains the end-user's assignment > > > 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment > … > The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. The considerations of > Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site" must > be followed if multiple /48s are requested. "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 > allocation and assignment requests". > > Proposed text: > 2.9. End-site > An End-Site is defined as the location of an End-User who has a business > or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service > provider that involves: > • that service provider assigning address space to the End-User location > • that service provider providing transit service for the End-User > location to other sites > • that service provider carrying the End-User's location traffic > • that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that > contains the End-User's location assignment > > 2.10. End-User > Service subscriber or customer from an LIR. > 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment > … > The minimum size of the assignment is a /48 per End-Site. The > considerations of Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a > single end site" must be followed if multiple /48s
Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition
Dear all, Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal "prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition". This proposal appears to be straightforward. APNIC notes the clarification to End-Site and End-User definitions in the policy manual, and it is unlikely to change current practices for evaluating requests. This proposal would not require any changes to the systems. If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation can be completed within 3 months. Regards, Sunny On 13/08/2021 9:59 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote: Dear SIG members, The proposal "prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 on Thursday, 16 September 2021. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fconference.apnic.net%2F52%2Fprogram%2Fschedule%2F%23%2Fday%2F4data=04%7C01%7C%7C3c3cb002245d47a3745308d95ded3a5b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637644095771867494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=L9%2BOzNDlsZMDdjiXkZhJ3%2Fcmplmw5Yz49dP%2F9t87En0%3Dreserved=0 We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM. The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal 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 made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is appended below and also available at: https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2Fprop-140data=04%7C01%7C%7C3c3cb002245d47a3745308d95ded3a5b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637644095771877447%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=D49%2F5RWK3j91IK0Ny7%2FIDG8mmXW5YVERZD9aoiK%2BfE4%3Dreserved=0 Regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --- prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition --- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) 1. Problem statement Section 2.9 was introduced with an IPv4 mind-set and doesn’t fully accommodate IPv6 deployments and members that may have multiple sites in case of assignments. Even if this text has evolved in several RIRs, the previous changes were imperfect, and thru this evolution in other RIRs, it was obvious that we missed some aspects such as “multiple locations” being different than “end-sites”. Further to that, sometimes it becomes confusing the fact that there is not a formal definition of end-user. Finally, 10.1.4.1. is slightly updated, just to make sure that assignments are considered per end-site, not member. Note that those changes are basically editorial clarifications because do not imply actual changes on what policies already allow. 2. Objective of policy change - Ensuring that both end-site and end-user are defined in a more accurate way. 3. Situation in other regions - Other RIRs already updated the policies on this regard. 4. Proposed policy solution --- Actual text: 2.9. End site An end site is defined as an end-user (subscriber) who has a business relationship with a service provider that involves: • that service provider assigning address space to the end-user • that service provider providing transit service for the end-user to other sites • that service provider carrying the end-user's traffic • that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the end-user's assignment 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment … The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. The considerations of Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site" must be followed if multiple /48s are requested. "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests". Proposed text: 2.9. End-site An End-Site is defined as the location of an End-User who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves: • that service provider assigning address space to the End-User location • that service provider providing transit service for the End-User location to other sites • that service provider carrying the End-User's location traffic • that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End-User's location assignment 2.10. End-User Service subscriber or customer from an LIR.
[sig-policy] New Proposal prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition
Dear SIG members, The proposal "prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 on Thursday, 16 September 2021. https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4 We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM. The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal 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 made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is appended below and also available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-140 Regards, Bertrand and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --- prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition --- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) 1. Problem statement Section 2.9 was introduced with an IPv4 mind-set and doesn’t fully accommodate IPv6 deployments and members that may have multiple sites in case of assignments. Even if this text has evolved in several RIRs, the previous changes were imperfect, and thru this evolution in other RIRs, it was obvious that we missed some aspects such as “multiple locations” being different than “end-sites”. Further to that, sometimes it becomes confusing the fact that there is not a formal definition of end-user. Finally, 10.1.4.1. is slightly updated, just to make sure that assignments are considered per end-site, not member. Note that those changes are basically editorial clarifications because do not imply actual changes on what policies already allow. 2. Objective of policy change - Ensuring that both end-site and end-user are defined in a more accurate way. 3. Situation in other regions - Other RIRs already updated the policies on this regard. 4. Proposed policy solution --- Actual text: 2.9. End site An end site is defined as an end-user (subscriber) who has a business relationship with a service provider that involves: • that service provider assigning address space to the end-user • that service provider providing transit service for the end-user to other sites • that service provider carrying the end-user's traffic • that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the end-user's assignment 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment … The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. The considerations of Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site" must be followed if multiple /48s are requested. "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests". Proposed text: 2.9. End-site An End-Site is defined as the location of an End-User who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves: • that service provider assigning address space to the End-User location • that service provider providing transit service for the End-User location to other sites • that service provider carrying the End-User's location traffic • that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End-User's location assignment 2.10. End-User Service subscriber or customer from an LIR. 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment … The minimum size of the assignment is a /48 per End-Site. The considerations of Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site" must be followed if multiple /48s are requested. "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests". 5. Advantages / Disadvantages - Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated in terms of clarifying end-user/end-site and that an end-site is a single location, which can obtain, in the case of an IPv6 assignment, a /48. Disadvantages: None, it is already consistent with the actual practices. 6. Impact on resource holders - None. 7. References - AFRINIC (different wording, same meaning): • https://www.afrinic.net/policy/manual#PI-A RIPE (same wording as suggested by this proposal): • https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
