Re: [sig-policy] Policy documentation feedback requested

2014-02-17 Thread Owen DeLong
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary. On 18/02/2014 12:26 am, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I support option 2. It is hard enough trying to follow the regional policy differences as an international network. At least being able

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

2014-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
Legacy should be different. Owen On Feb 25, 2014, at 14:07, Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com 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

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

2014-03-05 Thread Owen DeLong
On Mar 5, 2014, at 00:09 , Sanjeev Gupta sanj...@dcs1.biz wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Masato Yamanishi myama...@japan-telecom.com 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

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

2014-09-03 Thread Owen DeLong
On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Masato Yamanishi myama...@japan-telecom.com wrote: Hi Mike, Thank you for you comment and let me clarify your one point. On 2014/09/02 16:07, HENDERSON MICHAEL, MR michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz wrote: I do not favour IPv6 allocations on “non-nibble”

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

2014-09-18 Thread Owen DeLong
, | elvis | | On 18/09/14 09:35, Owen DeLong wrote: | | Absolutely… That is current policy in the ARIN region and it is working | well. | | The reality is that the amount saved by doing non-nibble boundary | allocations is insignificant compared to the likely increase in human

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

2015-02-04 Thread Owen DeLong
] 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 allocation size in legacy IPv6 space | | I will again oppose this as written

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

2015-02-04 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson hud...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based

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

2015-02-04 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson hud...@gmail.com mailto:hud...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. 1) it doesn't appear to

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

2015-02-03 Thread Owen DeLong
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 myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG

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

2015-02-05 Thread Owen DeLong
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

2015-02-07 Thread Owen DeLong
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: 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

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

2015-02-27 Thread Owen DeLong
-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 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria In theory, this is why each RIR has

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

2015-02-27 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani iz...@nic.ad.jp 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

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
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 myama...@gmail.com wrote:

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: I don’t

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
+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 d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote:

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: If said

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong o

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
I think this is an improvement, but I can support either way. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 21:54 , Sanjeev Gupta sanj...@dcs1.biz wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com mailto:ske...@v4now.com wrote: 4. Proposed policy solution ---

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
I support this as written. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 20:50 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com 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

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

2015-03-04 Thread Owen DeLong
That’s text I can support. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 21:27 , Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com 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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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

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

2015-02-24 Thread Owen DeLong
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 myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Colleagues, Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without any negative

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

2015-02-26 Thread Owen DeLong
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,

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

2015-02-26 Thread Owen DeLong
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com: 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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com 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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
:26 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer far...@umn.edu mailto:far...@umn.edu 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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer far...@umn.edu 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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:46 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com 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

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho raphael...@ap.equinix.com

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able

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

2015-02-25 Thread Owen DeLong
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho raphael...@ap.equinix.com 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

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

2015-02-26 Thread Owen DeLong
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 o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com のメッセージ: Yes, I was well aware of that. Is there anything you believe to be incorrect in my

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

2015-05-22 Thread Owen DeLong
it. Owen On May 22, 2015, at 10:21 , Paul Wilson pwil...@apnic.net wrote: On 23 May 2015, at 2:13 am, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Paul, I find it interesting amid calls for “don’t rearrange the deck chairs” that you single out my message as the one attempting to shut

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

2015-05-22 Thread Owen DeLong
down. Paul Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNICd...@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net@apnicdg On 22 May 2015, at 8:48 am, Owen DeLong o

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

2015-09-13 Thread Owen DeLong
I do not support the proposal. Contorting policy around the abomination that is CGN instead of recognizing that no amount of policy or other contortion will preserve usability in IPv4 and just getting on with the business of making IPv6 deployment ubiquitous is counterproductive for the

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

2015-09-13 Thread Owen DeLong
I still oppose the policy due to lack of inclusion of the possibility of a non-multi-homed need based on a unique routing policy. Owen > On Sep 12, 2015, at 23:33 , Jahangir Hossain wrote: > > I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but organization

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

2015-09-15 Thread Owen DeLong
ve <https://keybase.io/skeeve> > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, George Kuo <geo...@apnic.net > <mailto:geo...@apnic.net>> wrote: > Hi Owen, > > > On 15/09/2015 3:36 am, Owen DeLong wrot

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

2015-09-16 Thread Owen DeLong
> On Sep 15, 2015, at 17:58 , Paul Wilson <pwil...@apnic.net> wrote: > > Thanks Owen. > > On 16 Sep 2015, at 10:00, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I fully support the plan George described. >> >> If George states that policy is useful in pursuing that plan, I

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

2015-12-06 Thread Owen DeLong
arning, read to > Owen, do not speculate people's action on public space without ground.l, > especially such action was already explained publicly. > > On 6 Dec 2015, at 5:06 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > >> Fair warn

Re: [sig-policy] An interesting policy question

2015-12-05 Thread Owen DeLong
Fair warning, Lu asked the identical question on the ARIN list and (I presume the RIPE list since he left RIPE in all the key places in the one he posted to ARIN). It seems to me that he may be doing some form of registry policy shopping. Owen > On Dec 4, 2015, at 06:07 , Skeeve Stevens

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 revised.

2016-03-10 Thread Owen DeLong
Sanjaya, I think that’s a fine idea. I don’t think that this is “too operational” for the main policy document so much as it’s simply not a matter of policy. Policy and the existing database already fully enable the practice outlined in the proposal. Therefore, there is no need for policy in

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

2017-02-24 Thread Owen DeLong
I disagree… I believe that needs testing still preserves the idea of distributing addresses to those with need even in a post-exhaustion world. This serves to discourage speculative transactions and other transfers to those not actually needing addresses which would only drive prices up and

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

2017-09-12 Thread Owen DeLong
I oppose this policy. Any legitimate case for a “temporary transfer” that I can envision would be supported through SWIP from an LIR providing services. Otherwise, this amounts to a lease-style transaction which is most popular when related to activities that are generally considered harmful

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

2017-09-12 Thread Owen DeLong
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hi Aftab: > > I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on > reality. Aftab’s description of spammer operations is very much based in reality. > Spammers merely need one to two-month

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

2018-02-01 Thread Owen DeLong
ove. Owen > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:39 PM > To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com <mailto:m...@iptrading.com>> > Cc: Skeeve

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

2018-01-31 Thread Owen DeLong
I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8. I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject to one or more M transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in the number

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

2018-01-31 Thread Owen DeLong
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

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

2018-01-31 Thread Owen DeLong
.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve > <https://keybase.io/skeeve> > > Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>&g

Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

2018-09-10 Thread Owen DeLong
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

2018-09-11 Thread Owen DeLong
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] Prop124 version 4

2018-09-11 Thread Owen DeLong
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] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

2019-02-27 Thread Owen DeLong
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] prop-124-version 5: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

2019-02-22 Thread Owen DeLong
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,

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

2019-02-22 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-11 Thread Owen DeLong
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

2019-05-10 Thread Owen DeLong
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

2019-05-09 Thread Owen DeLong
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

2019-05-14 Thread Owen DeLong
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

2019-08-15 Thread Owen DeLong
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 first. >

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

2019-08-15 Thread Owen DeLong
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

2019-08-21 Thread Owen DeLong
or 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 sure how you

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

2019-08-21 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

2019-08-26 Thread Owen DeLong
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

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

2019-08-26 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

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

2019-08-26 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

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

2019-08-27 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

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

2019-08-30 Thread Owen DeLong
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

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

2019-08-22 Thread Owen DeLong
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-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

2019-08-28 Thread Owen DeLong
. > > > 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

2019-08-28 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

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

2019-08-28 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

2019-08-23 Thread Owen DeLong
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,

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

2019-09-09 Thread Owen DeLong
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] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

2019-08-09 Thread Owen DeLong
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