Hi again and responding below ...
El 17/2/20 15:24, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: 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. [Jordi] I've responded to that, please review the videos of the previous SIG. We can't put all the discussions in the proposal text. In summary. The actual text talks about documented purposes. If an end-user organization asked APNIC for an IPv4 (not using NAT, as some universities still do) or IPv6 prefix for their own systems (documented purpose), and later on they decide to run a guest or employees WiFi, they are not anymore using the assigned space for the documented purpose. It is a new purpose in additional for the original documented one. I think it is clear that the intend of the original text was not to restrict this, but instead to restrict that this assignment is not provided to "external third parties". Which this simple clarification, we resolve the problem. Instead we have the case for many organizations, that may be breaking the rules. - 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. [Jordi] Need basis is, in this case "I need space for my organization". Right now, if you strictly follow the policy and you said "I need space for my organization systems", you are violating the rules. It is a tiny difference, or it looks like that, but we should make sure that we follow the original intend, which was not to be so restrictive as "if you didn't over-specified every detail, now you're lost". - While it may be good to loosen the policy operationally, we oppose easing the policy itself. [Jordi] I'm not sure to understand this. - This proposal seems not to aim "Clarification" of Sub assignment. [Jordi] For me it is a clarification if we look at the intend of the policy: it was not to be restrictive in "how you use the resources in your organization", the idea was "the resources are only for your organization". There is no need to "document every tiny detail" if we can just make sure that it is clear that "it is for your organization, not for providing to others". 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 ********************************************** 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 [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
