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

[George Odagi]

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for your patience with this.

We have some stats (from the last 15 years) for members with ISP industry type 
who have received at least one portable IPv4 allocation and IPv6 assignment:

2005: 1
2008: 2
2011: 2
2012: 1
2013: 4
2014: 8
2015: 3
2016: 13
2017: 12
2018: 13
2019: 102
2020: 28

Total: 189

For most multihoming IPv4/PI IPv6 assignments, we mainly assess the policy 
criteria and don't always ask what they will use the assignment for. Members 
who have both allocation and assignment could have taken the 'one-click' IPv6 
assignment via MyAPNIC and again we won't know for sure why they took the 
assignment option.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

___
George Odagi
Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC
e: god...@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3188
f: +61 7 3858 3199
www.apnic.net
___
Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/

 







On 4/3/20, 4:19 pm, "sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of George 
Odagi"  wrote:

Hi Jordi,

Generally speaking - when a LIR (such as an ISP) receives an allocation, 
they can use those IPs for their infrastructure as well as for their customers. 
While most LIRs do this, we have received IP assignment requests for reasons 
such as multihoming their new POPs. 

Once we make an IP assignment to an LIR or an end-user, we expect them to 
use that assignment for the purpose it was delegated. Provided those IPs are 
being routed, we consider them being used for the purpose it was delegated.

The data you have requested is not readily available and we will need more 
time to look into it. APNIC Secretariat will share this soon.


Regards,

___
George Odagi
Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC
e: god...@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3188
f: +61 7 3858 3199
www.apnic.net
___
Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/








On 26/2/20, 5:35 pm, "sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI 
PALET MARTINEZ"  wrote:

Hi Sunny,

I'm mainly interested in the assignments to ISP infrastructure, as the 
others are different cases, and clearly are "end-users". The point is to 
understand if there is really a need for ISPs to get additional assignments, 
why they can't do it already from their own allocation. 

Any indication of the tendency for those cases (assignments for ISP 
infrastructure), I mean if this was in an early stage and the is going up or 
going down?

What specific text of the policy or guidelines is "being" used to do 
that?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



El 26/2/20 4:18, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

Hi Jordi,

On 24/02/2020 1:39 pm, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:
>>
>> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide 
stats 
>> on the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in 
the 
>> last 12-15 years, in order to understand if this is a real 
requirement?
> 
> Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon.
> 
> Regards
> Sunny

To date we have delegated portable assignments to 547 ISPs. Some 
common 
reasons for this include:

- Assignment to operate IXP
- Historical Resource assignments
- M of members who held assignments
- Assignment for ISP infrastructure

Regards
Sunny




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource 

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

[George Odagi]

Hi Jordi,

Generally speaking - when a LIR (such as an ISP) receives an allocation, they 
can use those IPs for their infrastructure as well as for their customers. 
While most LIRs do this, we have received IP assignment requests for reasons 
such as multihoming their new POPs. 

Once we make an IP assignment to an LIR or an end-user, we expect them to use 
that assignment for the purpose it was delegated. Provided those IPs are being 
routed, we consider them being used for the purpose it was delegated.

The data you have requested is not readily available and we will need more time 
to look into it. APNIC Secretariat will share this soon.


Regards,

___
George Odagi
Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC
e: god...@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3188
f: +61 7 3858 3199
www.apnic.net
___
Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/








On 26/2/20, 5:35 pm, "sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI 
PALET MARTINEZ"  wrote:

Hi Sunny,

I'm mainly interested in the assignments to ISP infrastructure, as the 
others are different cases, and clearly are "end-users". The point is to 
understand if there is really a need for ISPs to get additional assignments, 
why they can't do it already from their own allocation. 

Any indication of the tendency for those cases (assignments for ISP 
infrastructure), I mean if this was in an early stage and the is going up or 
going down?

What specific text of the policy or guidelines is "being" used to do that?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



El 26/2/20 4:18, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

Hi Jordi,

On 24/02/2020 1:39 pm, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:
>>
>> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats 
>> on the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the 
>> last 12-15 years, in order to understand if this is a real 
requirement?
> 
> Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon.
> 
> Regards
> Sunny

To date we have delegated portable assignments to 547 ISPs. Some common 
reasons for this include:

- Assignment to operate IXP
- Historical Resource assignments
- M of members who held assignments
- Assignment for ISP infrastructure

Regards
Sunny




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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

*  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

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sunny,

I'm mainly interested in the assignments to ISP infrastructure, as the others 
are different cases, and clearly are "end-users". The point is to understand if 
there is really a need for ISPs to get additional assignments, why they can't 
do it already from their own allocation. 

Any indication of the tendency for those cases (assignments for ISP 
infrastructure), I mean if this was in an early stage and the is going up or 
going down?

What specific text of the policy or guidelines is "being" used to do that?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 26/2/20 4:18, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

Hi Jordi,

On 24/02/2020 1:39 pm, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:
>>
>> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats 
>> on the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the 
>> last 12-15 years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement?
> 
> Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon.
> 
> Regards
> Sunny

To date we have delegated portable assignments to 547 ISPs. Some common 
reasons for this include:

- Assignment to operate IXP
- Historical Resource assignments
- M of members who held assignments
- Assignment for ISP infrastructure

Regards
Sunny




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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

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

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Jordi,

On 24/02/2020 1:39 pm, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:
>>
>> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats 
>> on the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the 
>> last 12-15 years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement?
> 
> Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon.
> 
> Regards
> Sunny

To date we have delegated portable assignments to 547 ISPs. Some common 
reasons for this include:

- Assignment to operate IXP
- Historical Resource assignments
- M of members who held assignments
- Assignment for ISP infrastructure

Regards
Sunny
*  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

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sunny, all,

Let me try to clarify.

2.2.3 mention "address space that is delegated to an LIR" ... "for specific use 
within the Internet infrastructure they operate". Let's put aside, for the 
moment, the end-user case.

If you read 9.2. Initial IPv6 allocations and 10.0. IPv6 assignments, there is 
not any explicit reference to assignments for an LIR.

We could interpret 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment "Organizations are eligible for 
an IPv6 Provider Independent delegation if they are able to demonstrate a valid 
reason that an assignment from their ISP, or LIR, is not suitable.", as if an 
ISP/LIR can't assign part of their own allocation to its own network, but it is 
really weird.

So, I'm wondering if this is valid case anymore, or it is one of those things 
that come from the original IPv6-policy, and was drafted due to lack of 
experience at that time. Do we have a case for that? In other RIRs, this has 
been already removed.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 24/2/20 4:39, "Srinivas Chendi"  escribió:

Hello Jordi,

On 22/02/2020 2:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in 
the actual policy (neither guidelines)  about assignments. So, I'm wondering if 
I was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... 
Could the secretariat point out to the specific text about that? If it has been 
removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to remove that 
reference and avoid the mismatch.

You mean section 2.2.3 text? It is not removed. You can find it in the 
current policy manual here


https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space


> 
> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats on 
the number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the last 12-15 
years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement?

Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon.

Regards
Sunny

> 
> Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment 
instead of using their own allocation?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> *  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
> 




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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

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

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hello Jordi,

On 22/02/2020 2:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in the 
> actual policy (neither guidelines)  about assignments. So, I'm wondering if I 
> was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... 
> Could the secretariat point out to the specific text about that? If it has 
> been removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to 
> remove that reference and avoid the mismatch.

You mean section 2.2.3 text? It is not removed. You can find it in the 
current policy manual here

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space


> 
> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats on the 
> number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the last 12-15 
> years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement?

Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon.

Regards
Sunny

> 
> Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment instead 
> of using their own allocation?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> *  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
> 
*  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

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

[Srinivas Chendi]

Hi Jordi,

On 21/02/2020 3:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Thanks Bertrand,
> 
> I’m fine as well with this option. Repeating it here:
> 
> "Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned".
> 
> Could the secretariat let us know if they still believe there is any text 
> that is "unnecessarily duplicated" or if they could live with that?

As reported at APNIC 49 Policy SIG, Secretariat do not have any issues 
with the current policy text nor the proposed text in version 2 of prop-133.

Secretariat impact assessment comments for any new versions of this 
proposal will be shared with the community after the proposal is 
formally submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs.

> 
> Note that it seems that emails using DMARC still get wrong to the mailing 
> list. It will be very important that the secretariat resolves that, 
> otherwise, some participants are not getting emails from some of us 
> (including me). So, no wonder that they don’t respond!

Thanks for reporting this issue. Secretariat is looking into it and will 
provide an update soon.

Regards
Sunny

> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 21/2/20 15:14, "Bertrand Cherrier" 
>  mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> escribió:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> Thank you Jordi for this revised prop.
> How about this :
> 
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned.
> 
> It would be nice to have inputs from other members of the Policy SIG, 
> especially from those who opposed this proposal.
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> 
> Bertrand Cherrier
> Administration Systèmes - R
> Micro Logic Systems
> mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc
> https://www.mls.nc
> Tél : +687 24 99 24
> VoIP : 65 24 99 24
> SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)
> 
> On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in 
> the mailing list.
> 
> I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text 
> as some indicated in the mike.
> 
> So, what do you feel about these two choices:
> 
> Option a)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate.
> 
> Option b)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.
> 
> My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be 
> option a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be 
> sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff 
> inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it).
> 
> Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at:
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> * 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
> * 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
> 
> 
> 
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> 

[sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments returned to author

[Bertrand Cherrier]

Dear colleagues,

Version 2 of prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments, did not reach 
consensus at the APNIC 49 Open Policy Meeting.


The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further 
discussion with the community and invited the author to submit an

amended version based on the community's feedback.

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and 
links to previous versions are available at:


https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-133/

Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
Policy SIG Chairs
*  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

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Of course, no issue, thanks!

 

Safe flights for everyone!

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 22/2/20 12:21, "Sanjaya Sanjaya"  escribió:

 

Hi Jordi and all,

Will respond on Monday as we're currently recuperating from the APRICOT week :) 
Stay tuned.

Sanjaya 

Sent from my mobile. 

 

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net  
on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 1:20:59 PM
To: mailman_SIG-policy 
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments 

 

Hi all,

After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in the 
actual policy (neither guidelines)  about assignments. So, I'm wondering if I 
was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... Could 
the secretariat point out to the specific text about that? If it has been 
removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to remove that 
reference and avoid the mismatch.

One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats on the 
number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the last 12-15 years, 
in order to understand if this is a real requirement?

Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment instead of 
using their own allocation?

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

*  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

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

[Sanjaya Sanjaya]

Hi Jordi and all,

Will respond on Monday as we're currently recuperating from the APRICOT week :) 
Stay tuned.

Sanjaya

Sent from my mobile.


From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net  
on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 1:20:59 PM
To: mailman_SIG-policy 
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

Hi all,

After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in the 
actual policy (neither guidelines)  about assignments. So, I'm wondering if I 
was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... Could 
the secretariat point out to the specific text about that? If it has been 
removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to remove that 
reference and avoid the mismatch.

One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats on the 
number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the last 12-15 years, 
in order to understand if this is a real requirement?

Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment instead of 
using their own allocation?

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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
*  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

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi all,

After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in the 
actual policy (neither guidelines)  about assignments. So, I'm wondering if I 
was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... Could 
the secretariat point out to the specific text about that? If it has been 
removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to remove that 
reference and avoid the mismatch.

One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats on the 
number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the last 12-15 years, 
in order to understand if this is a real requirement?

Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment instead of 
using their own allocation?

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Owen,

 

APNIC policy allows ISPs to get, in addition to the allocation, an assignment 
for their infrastructure.

 

I don’t think this is needed and I recall it doesn’t longer exist in other 
RIRs. May be is something else to consider and to amend as well.

 

The issue we are having, is that without inputs in the list, there is no way we 
can move on, otherwise, every 6 months, we fail again and again …

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 22/2/20 10:30, "Owen DeLong"  escribió:

 

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 can limit it to space that is delegated to an end-user 
by the RIR.

 

Owen

 



On Feb 20, 2020, at 20:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  
wrote:

 

Thanks Bertrand,

I’m fine as well with this option. Repeating it here:

"Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned".

Could the secretariat let us know if they still believe there is any text that 
is "unnecessarily duplicated" or if they could live with that?

Note that it seems that emails using DMARC still get wrong to the mailing list. 
It will be very important that the secretariat resolves that, otherwise, some 
participants are not getting emails from some of us (including me). So, no 
wonder that they don’t respond!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 21/2/20 15:14, "Bertrand Cherrier" 
 escribió:

Hello everyone,
Thank you Jordi for this revised prop.
How about this :

Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned.

It would be nice to have inputs from other members of the Policy SIG, 
especially from those who opposed this proposal.
Regards,
Cordialement,

Bertrand Cherrier
Administration Systèmes - R
Micro Logic Systems
mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc
https://www.mls.nc
Tél : +687 24 99 24
VoIP : 65 24 99 24
SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)

On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi all,

As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in the 
mailing list.

I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text as 
some indicated in the mike.

So, what do you feel about these two choices:

Option a)
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate.

Option b)
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.

My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be option 
a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be 
sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff 
inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it).

Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at:
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



* 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
* 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

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

[Owen DeLong]

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 can limit it to space that is delegated to an end-user 
by the RIR.

Owen


> On Feb 20, 2020, at 20:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  
> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bertrand,
> 
> I’m fine as well with this option. Repeating it here:
> 
> "Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned".
> 
> Could the secretariat let us know if they still believe there is any text 
> that is "unnecessarily duplicated" or if they could live with that?
> 
> Note that it seems that emails using DMARC still get wrong to the mailing 
> list. It will be very important that the secretariat resolves that, 
> otherwise, some participants are not getting emails from some of us 
> (including me). So, no wonder that they don’t respond!
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 21/2/20 15:14, "Bertrand Cherrier" 
>   en nombre de 
> mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc > escribió:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> Thank you Jordi for this revised prop.
> How about this :
> 
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned.
> 
> It would be nice to have inputs from other members of the Policy SIG, 
> especially from those who opposed this proposal.
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> 
> Bertrand Cherrier
> Administration Systèmes - R
> Micro Logic Systems
> mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc 
> https://www.mls.nc
> Tél : +687 24 99 24
> VoIP : 65 24 99 24
> SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)
> 
> On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in 
> the mailing list.
> 
> I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text 
> as some indicated in the mike.
> 
> So, what do you feel about these two choices:
> 
> Option a)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate.
> 
> Option b)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.
> 
> My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be 
> option a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be 
> sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff 
> inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it).
> 
> Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at:
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> * 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
> * 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
> 
> 
> 
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com 
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> 

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Thanks Bertrand,

I’m fine as well with this option. Repeating it here:

"Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned".

Could the secretariat let us know if they still believe there is any text that 
is "unnecessarily duplicated" or if they could live with that?

Note that it seems that emails using DMARC still get wrong to the mailing list. 
It will be very important that the secretariat resolves that, otherwise, some 
participants are not getting emails from some of us (including me). So, no 
wonder that they don’t respond!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 21/2/20 15:14, "Bertrand Cherrier" 
 escribió:

Hello everyone,
Thank you Jordi for this revised prop.
How about this :

Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned.

It would be nice to have inputs from other members of the Policy SIG, 
especially from those who opposed this proposal.
Regards,
Cordialement,

Bertrand Cherrier
Administration Systèmes - R
Micro Logic Systems
mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc
https://www.mls.nc
Tél : +687 24 99 24
VoIP : 65 24 99 24
SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)

On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi all,

As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in the 
mailing list.

I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text as 
some indicated in the mike.

So, what do you feel about these two choices:

Option a)
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate.

Option b)
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.

My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be option 
a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be 
sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff 
inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it).

Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at:
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



* 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
* 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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi all,

As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in the 
mailing list.

I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text as 
some indicated in the mike.

So, what do you feel about these two choices:

Option a)
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate.

Option b)
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.

My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be option 
a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be 
sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff 
inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it).

Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at:
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*  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