Dear Community Members,
Following the LACNIC 25 meeting in La Habana, Cuba from 2 - 6 May 2016,
the proposals under discussion during the Open Policy Forum reached the
following statuses:
Two proposals reached consensus and sent to mailing list for 45 day
comment period:
--------------------------------
- LAC-2016-4 "Modify direct IPv6 address assignment to end users"
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2016-4?language=en
The proposal removes some of the criteria to justify an IPv6
assignment to end-user organizations. According to the author there
was no justification to request information such as number of hosts
in each subnet and details of routing plan or protocols to be used.
- LAC-2016-6 "Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements
for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sites"
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2016-6?language=en
This proposal aims to remove the maximum limit of /32 for IPv6
assignments to end-user organizations and to modify the text related
to subsequent assignments which would give the interpretation that
a contiguous block would always be granted.
Three proposals sent back to mailing list:
--------------------------------
- LAC-2016-2 "IPv4 reserve pool for critical infrastructure in the
Region"
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2016-2?language=en
This proposal seems to create a /15 IPv4 address pool to facilitate
the deployment of critical infrastructure in the region and would
create a reserve that is not subject to the current IPv4 depletion
phases.
- LAC-2016-3 "Remove the reference to a provider's multihomed or
non-multihomed status"
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2016-3?language=en
This proposal eases the multihoming requirement by eliminating the
reference to a provider's "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
It also reduces the utilization requirement from "at least
50% of the requested address space" to "25% of the requested address
space".
- LAC-2016-5 "Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocation"
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2016-5?language=en
This proposal aims to create a new section in the policy manual where
governmental organizations providing Internet access to other
internal organizations could justify their needs for an allocation
larger than a /32.
One proposal was abandoned:
--------------------------------
- LAC-2016-1 "IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the
protocols is supported"
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2016-1?language=en
This proposal aimed to establish a recommendation or rule for settling
cases of IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when a network or carrier
only supports IPv4 and wants to communicate with another network
which only supports IPv6.
An overview of LACNIC´s policy proposals can be found here:
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/list
Find more information about the LACNIC Policy Development Process here:
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/proceso-de-desarrollo-de-politicas
Kind regards,
George Odagi
Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC
e: [email protected]
p: +61 7 3858 3188
f: +61 7 3858 3199
www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________
Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/
_______________________________________________________
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
