I agree… I don’t think there is any benefit to this policy and I oppose adding IPv6 to inter-RIR transfers of any form.
Owen > On Feb 16, 2020, at 20:20 , Tsurumaki, Satoru <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-133, > based on a meeting we organised on 4th Feb to discuss these proposals. > > Many opposing opinions were expressed about this proposal. > > (comment details) > - In the discuss about previous proposal, prop-124, some opinions > were expressed as to who was in trouble and who needed to change, but > it seems that the proposer did not respond to these opinions in this > proposal. > - IP addresses should be delegated on an as-needed basis, and if this > proposal is passed, there is concern that clarification of the > intended use at the time of acquisition will be lost. > - While it may be good to loosen the policy operationally, we oppose > easing the policy itself. > - This proposal seems not to aim "Clarification" of Sub assignment. > > Regards, > Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team > > 2020年2月16日(日) 18:31 Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected]>: >> >> Dear SIG members >> >> A new version of the proposal "prop-133-v002: Clarification on >> Sub-Assignments" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> Information about earlier versions is available from: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-133 >> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> >> Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >> What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? >> >> Please find the text of the proposal below. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> ________________________________ >> >> prop-133-v002: Clarification on Sub-Assignments >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez >> [email protected] >> >> 1. Problem statement >> >> Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct >> assignments from APNIC, >> or when a LIR obtains, also from APNIC, and assignment for exclusive use >> within its infrastructure. >> Consequently, this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations. >> >> The intended goal of assignments is for usage by end-users or LIRs in >> their own infrastructure (servers, >> equipment, interconnections, employees, guest devices, subcontractors, >> only within that infrastructure), >> not for sub-assignment in other networks. >> >> The current text uses a “must” together with “documented purposes”. As a >> consequence, if there is a request >> with a documented purpose, and in the future the assigned space is used >> for some other purposes, it will >> violate the policy. >> >> For example, a university may document in the request, that the assigned >> addressing space will be used for >> their own network devices and serves, but afterwards they also >> sub-assign to the students in the campus >> (still same infrastructure). This last purpose was not documented, so it >> will fall out of the policy. >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> >> Clarification of the text, by rewording it. >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> >> This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC and >> RIPE. >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> >> Actual text: >> 2.2.3. Assigned address space >> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or >> end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they >> operate. Assignments must only be made for specific, documented purposes >> and may not be sub-assigned. >> >> Proposed text: >> 2.2.3. Assigned address space >> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or >> end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate. >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> >> Advantages: >> Advantages of the proposal: >> Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the >> real situation in the market. >> >> Disadvantages: >> Disadvantages of the proposal: >> None foreseen. >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> >> Impact on resource holders: >> None. >> >> 7. References >> >> AFRINIC: https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-v6-002-d3#details >> >> ARIN: >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-5-allocation-assignment-reallocation-reassignment >> and https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_15/ >> >> LACNIC: >> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-7?language=en >> >> RIPE NCC: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > -- > -- > Satoru Tsurumaki > BBIX, Inc > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
