Hi Job,
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:52:13AM +0600, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote:
> > A new version of the proposal "prop-132: AS0 for Bogons"
> > has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> >
> > Information about earlier versions is available from:
> >
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 03:55:00PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> As of now, there are XXX IPv4 and YYY IPv6 routes in the global Internet
> routing table which cover address space managed by APNIC [snip]
I took today's delegated-apnic-extended-latest file, grepped for
'available|reserved',
led review of this proposal from a
>>> service and legal perspective so the community can better understand
>>> the implementation, if this proposal reaches consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Javed Khan
>>> MSCE and CCS
Dear all,
I've reviewed the proposal, and while I haven't yet made up my mind
whether this is a good or bad idea, I do want to propose some changes
to the text because the current wording introduces some confusion in my
operator mind.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:52:13AM +0600, Sumon Ahmed Sabir
tion, if this proposal reaches consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >> Javed Khan
> >> MSCE and CCSP
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>> MSCE and CCSP
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
>> on behalf of David Farmer
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
>> *To:
Thanks David for your points, I'm working on v3 to address some of these
concern.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:22 PM David Farmer wrote:
> The increased consequences of an APNIC Member failing to pay fees or the
> extremely rare possibility of an error by APNIC Staff
The increased consequences of an APNIC Member failing to pay fees or the
extremely rare possibility of an error by APNIC Staff should be called out
as a potential impacts of the proposal in section 7.
Personally, I support the proposal, but it is a matter of informed consent,
the community needs
> 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
Hi Owen,
cutting some stuff out, just to keep the thread small.
Anyone can very quickly put just about anything in RADB if they want to.
> It’s also relatively easy to put nearly anything in the current ARIN IRR
> (not to be confused with the ARIN RIR database). There are also some other
> IRRs
clear enough expression.
>>
>> I will leave that for APNIC to respond and its a fair enough concern that a
>> clarity is needed.
>>
>>
>> That is my current question about this proposal. I am sure Javed will speak
>> up if it doesn’t also reflect his question/conce
blem of understanding
here?
Also it’s seems you are fine with people advertising bogons just because
fixing it might make one/two people unhappy.
> Owen
>
>
>
>> J Khan
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Aftab Siddiqui
>>
From: Aftab Siddiqui <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2019 6:16 PM
> To: Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>>
> Cc: Javed Khan mailto:javedkha...@outlook.com>>;
> Policy SIG mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>>; Sumon Ahmed
> Sabir mailto:s
very crucial for ISPs to sustain the fierce market
> competition and if APNIC fails to timely update the AS0 ROAs, this will
> effect the service delivery and/or network downtime.
>
> I request APNIC to provide a detailed review of this proposal from a
> service and legal perspect
..@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>
mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>>
on behalf of David Farmer mailto:far...@umn.edu>>
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
To: Aftab Siddiqui mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Sumon Ahmed Sabir mailto:sasa...@g
: mailman_SIG-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons
Hi Javed,
Thanks for your email and for your participation in the policy
development process.
We're consulting our experts to provide a response to your query soon.
Please allow us sometime.
Regards
Sunny
On 24/08/2019 12
etition and if APNIC fails to timely update the AS0 ROAs, this will
>> effect the service delivery and/or network downtime.
>>
>> I request APNIC to provide a detailed review of this proposal from a service
>> and legal perspective so the community can better understan
pdate the AS0 ROAs, this will
>> effect the service delivery and/or network downtime.
>>
>> I request APNIC to provide a detailed review of this proposal from a
>> service and legal perspective so the community can better understand the
>> implementation, if this proposa
t>> on behalf of David Farmer
> mailto:far...@umn.edu>>
> Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
> To: Aftab Siddiqui <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>
> Cc: Sumon Ahmed Sabir mailto:sasa...@gmail.com>>; Policy
> SIG mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>>
mn.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
> *To:* Aftab Siddiqui
> *Cc:* Sumon Ahmed Sabir ; Policy SIG <
> sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Aftab Siddiqui
> wrote:
regards
> Javed Khan
> MSCE and CCSP
>
>
>
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> on behalf of David Farmer
>
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
> *To:* Aftab Siddiqui
> *Cc:* Sumon Ahmed Sa
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
on behalf of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
To: Aftab Siddiqui
Cc: Sumon Ahmed Sabir ; Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Aftab Siddiqui
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Aftab Siddiqui
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:36 AM David Farmer wrote:
>
>> The problem statement says;
>>
>> Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a packet
>> with an IP source address in an address block not yet
Hi David,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:36 AM David Farmer wrote:
> The problem statement says;
>
> Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a packet
> with an IP source address in an address block not yet allocated by IANA
> or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE
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
The problem statement says;
Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a packet
with an IP source address in an address block not yet allocated by IANA
or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC, AFRINIC and
LACNIC)...
So that raises a question, what about
26 matches
Mail list logo
