Hello, Jordi and the SIG Members.FYI, I've attached an excerpt from the APNIC 57 transcript. Hope this helps with the new version.
Kind regards, Sunny On 23/07/2024 9:47 am, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy wrote:
Resent …Working in a new version of this proposal. It will be good to have inputs in the next couple of days, so I can submit a new version before the deadline.Tks! Saludos, Jordi @jordipaletEl 29 feb 2024, a las 0:26, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <[email protected]> escribió:Hi all, I will like to prepare a new version of this proposal ASAP.Towards that, I will love to have inputs from the community, specially those that objected to the proposal.If I didn’t missed anything, the main objections are: 1) A /22 is too small. So what will be sufficient then?2) Don’t link this proposal to IPv6. I think this is resolved with a proposal that already reached consensus today: prop-156: Assignment of Temporary IP Resources. Do we agree on that ?3) The impact analysis didn’t mention anything regarding "The extension must be anticipated by a minimum of 30 days before the previously agreed end-date”. I’m happy to remove that, or make it shorter, I was just trying to ensure that the RIR doesn’t have too much overhead with urgent last minutes extension. If this is not a problem, I can just remove that or shorten that period to 1 weeks or something similar?I’m happy to work on those points to accommodate those objections, but please, restate them in the list and let’s have a discussion on that so we can define the appropriate wording.Tks for all the inputs, and hopefully we can have them quickly discussed in the list!Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 CompanyThis 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 - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 CompanyThis 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 -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
-- _______________________________________________________________________ Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Regional Advisor - Membership and Policy Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD |http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Okay. The next item is a policy proposal by Jordi. Do we have Jordi online? >> JORDI PALET: Yes, I am online. Can you hear me? >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Yes, we can hear you loud and clear. >> JORDI PALET: Okay. So I can start already? >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Yes, you can. Will you be sharing your presentation? >> JORDI PALET: Yes, I am sharing already. Can you see it? >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Yes. >> JORDI PALET: Yep. Thank you. 8 >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Thanks. >> JORDI PALET: Okay. So proposal 1 version 157, version 2, temporary V4 transfers. When we discuss it through different workshops and policy proposals in the community, the need for leasing, we didn't realize that there is already a mechanism that it may be accommodated to be equivalent to leasing, which is making what we have today as transfers. But making them also temporary transfers. The point is to ensure that the -- the people that is getting addresses is complying with the actual policies. So we can keep the control of the registries and the security of the return of the addresses when the leasing part concludes. The idea was basically also to ensure that these type of temporary transfers are a benefit for the region. So I am proposing them to be only inside the vision, not which other registries -- not which other regions. The objective of the policy is to allow permanent and temporary transfers, not only permanent as we have today of IPv4 addresses. What is the situation in other regions? Only in RIPE and see temporary transfers that allow it, actually there is not a concept of leasing in the definitions of RIPE and NCC policies. That is not either explicitly prohibited. In AfriNIC or LACNIC, leasing is not allowed. We have an equivalent proposed in LACNIC. Leasing is not a valid justification of the need. When leasing addresses, no more addresses can be requested. Additionally certain blocks of aiding cannot be leased. So what are the changes that I am proposing? In section 11, IPv4 transfers we added some new text and it is not too much text. I'm going to read it. In the case of temporary IPv4 transfers a public -- let me move the screen, a public lock will contain the initial date of the transfer as well as the final one. The final date must be updated. The transfer period is extended by agreement of both parties which must be legitimatized by APNIC. The extension must be anticipated by a minimum of 30 days before the previously written end date. And in case of temporary transfers, APNIC will restore the original registration information in the who is database when the transfer period is over. Then in section 11.1, I just make small modifications, I put them in blue in the text, in the right of the screen. So instead of just IPv4 transfers we will have IPv4 permanent and temporary transfers and then exactly the same in the paragraph below. Section 11.1.1, we add just a new condition on the space to transfer it, which says in case of temporary transfers, the 9 maximum prefix in total, that a single recipient can get is a slash 22. Why we say here in total? We don't want a single recipient can start doing 1/22 from different sources. The main idea of this proposal is to help with the transition of IPv6, not only but that's the main point. And which a small prefix, a small IPv4 prefix it should be enough for doing the transition. For example, using 4/6. Section 11.1.3, the conditions on the recipient. In the case of temporary -- -- in the case of temporary transfers -- (background talking). In the case of temporary transfers the plan for usage will match the initial transfer period in 24 months. And then finally, totally new section, which additional conditions for the temporary transfers. And this text is the one that has probably most of the changes from version 1, to accommodate the impact analysis from the staff and also some inputs from the community. So this section additional conditions for temporary transfers, temporary transfers are subjected to additional conditions that must be warrantied by the transfer network among the parties. Must include terms of transfer cancellation in case of usage for network abuse. The recipient must have an ASN to announce transfer. The recipient must have RPKI for the transfer resources. And the recipient must follow MANRS first practices. The source is responsible. It is not -- -- it is making clear that it is not task for APNIC but the source is responsible for the oversight of those conditions. APNIC will be able to establish operational practices to ensure compliance. In case of lack of due diligence by a source, even with different temporary transfers or recipients, APNIC will initiate a warning which if ignores it, will trigger the immediate revocation of the resources involved. Advantages, it allows to retain sources on a temporary basis, in order to facilitate IPv6. Which is especially important for smaller organizations and newcomers. I don't see any disadvantages in the proposal. And I don't see an impact on existing resource holders. And that's the end of my presentation. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Thank you, Jordi. Any comments or questions for the floor? Just a reminder please state your name and affiliation. But you are starting. >> AUDIENCE: Jonathan Brewer, New Zealand. I work with a large number of small providers who have IPv4 only networks. And two years ago one of these providers had a commercial situation that had the technical staff and some of the owners locked out of their network. They needed to have temporary IP allocation to get their network back running. And this did happen in a number of days. 10 There are 500 or so rural customers for whom their wireless connectivity is their own connectivity. We are back online. They don't have IPv6. I think this requirement for people to have IPv6 in order to have temporary transfer is ridiculous. So I strongly oppose. Thank you. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Thank you. >> JORDI PALET: If I can say, the main reason for this proposal is because I believe, and I am sure I am not alone in the community, that the reason for getting -- the usual reason for getting the temporary transfers or leasing is because you need some more space to move to IPv6. So that's the reason we have this requirement. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Okay. >> JORDI PALET: I think the situation that Jonathan described, it probably needs some special emergency policy in case of special situations. But that -- that should be something totally different. And that probably could be resolved with a proposal that has passed today already. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Okay. Jordi, we will hear the next comment. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Maemura Akinori from JPNIC. Thank you very much for the proposal. And then I think that the -- this temporary transfer be -- maybe we can practically can do this by the transfer, transfer forward. And then the transfer back, the same resource in the short period. So I don't really have a good point to have the new scheme of this kind of temporary transfer. And then yes, I do -- I do support that your -- your passion to, you know, behave in Internet routing system, for example, to comply comprehensive MANRS or some other effort that's required for this system. But it is -- I would -- I would like to have a bit more elaboration how it can be implemented in the APNIC policy scheme. With those -- with those revelations, I can -- I am not able to support this proposal. Thank you very much. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Okay. Thank you. Jordi, any comments? >> JORDI PALET: If I can ask, I didn't understand your first point very well. Can you restate it? >> AUDIENCE: Yes. The temporary -- you are proposing establishing the temporary transfer. But the temporary transfer is transferring the -- this kind of handling can be realized by the transfer to the one certain holder. And then transfer it back again in a short period. So I think this is possible, even if -- even the current policy setup. That's my point. >> JORDI PALET: Okay. I understand now. I am not sure that's possible, because I don't recall right now off the top of my head the exact wording of the actual policies for transfers. 11 But I think there is a minimum period, and it may happen that you need transfer for a shorter period. And then you cannot retransfer again so quickly. So I am not sure that's actually possible. And I believe it will be more complex than using what I am proposing here. Regarding the implementation of the -- I understand what you mean is the additional conditions, that I -- that I had in my last slide. What I am doing now is not asking APNIC to do that by themselves, but just ensuring that the contract between the source and the recipient contemplates that. So APNIC basically will only oversight that at the very high level in case something is really broken and typically that will only happen by a source that is playing let's say nasty games. So it would be easy to understand that their contracts are not being followed or things like that. I think that resolves the problem. And it was one of the key points of the impact analysis as I mentioned already from version 1. Thank you. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I acknowledge the second point. Thank you. >> JORDI PALET: Thanks. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Thanks. Sunny. >> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Sunny Chendi from the Secretariat. We published the analysis for all the proposals. I'm not sure how many of you actually looked at it, but I just want to read one of the points from that impact assessment. Based on the current wording of the APNIC fee schedule these temporary transfers would be applicable for the transfer fees. I wanted to say that here. >> JORDI PALET: Yes, I responded to that in the mailing list. I think that's fine. It's up to the EC to decide. And it is actually in the justification of the proposal. It is up to the EC to decide if they want to keep the same fee scheme for the temporary transfers or they want to do something different. That's out of the scope of the policies. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Okay. Thank you. Yes, please. >> AUDIENCE: Matthew Enger. We are a small provider. So this policy potentially for some of my competitors but even for us are looking for IPv4 spaces and new entrance of the market gives us options. My concern the slash 22 limitation for small providers is not going to be necessarily enough. We need to grow, we sometimes need to get IPv4 resources and buying them on the open market is actually an option for. I feel like the slash 22 limitation is not going to help the small ones in the longer term. Yes, moving off IPv4 would be wonderful. Linking IPv6 to this I feel is a little unfair because not everyone can go to IPv6 for various reasons. Small guys might not have the right equipment to do it. And to say they can't use these 12 procedures because the equipment they happen to for their small struggling business doesn't support IPv6. And try to play extra limitations, it seems unfair and we are linking two different things together, is not fair. We should be -- I oppose this. >> JORDI PALET: What I'm hearing in some cases you are not yet planning to move to IPv6. So then you probably may need a bigger prefix, a bigger IPv4 prefix. And it is something you need for a longer period. In that case I think it makes sense for you to go for a regular transfer, for a permanent transfer, not a temporary one. So this proposal is not trying to resolve that case. >> AUDIENCE: I'm thinking about -- in my case my network supports IPv6 and we are dual stack. And we are offering it to our customers. A lot of your customers are not wanting to go on to IPv6. And they are the ones resisting. It is not our side. There are a lot of small providers using network gear that they have bought secondhand is not working. I feel it is forcing something on them that's unnecessary. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Okay. Thanks. Yes, please. >> AUDIENCE: Oscar Robles from LACNIC. What's the reason behind asking at least 30 days to agree on the extension of this temporary transfer? And second, what would be the consequence in case this is not -- that they bridge that condition? What if they agree five days before to extend that temporary transfer? What is the author suggesting to happen afterwards? >> JORDI PALET: Well, the reason for asking for 30 days is because I think it's minimum, there must be a minimum period of time. So the registry is not let's say needing to change the things in the last minute. Because they need to update which the last end date for the transfer, some time in advance, if the registries tell me that they are fine, just five days, I have no problem in changing that to five days. But for me it was trying to reduce a little bit possible overhead in terms of last minute extensions. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Thanks, Jordi. Next. >> AUDIENCE: Marco Schmidt. My capacity, I don't have an opinion about this proposal. But as in the RIPE and CC region we have temporary transfers. I would like to share our experience. In our region the temporary transfers they have no conditions attached like in this proposal. And we have identified a couple of challenges with this no condition situation. Not so much in the areas that Jordi has put in his proposal. But, for example, we got a temporary transfer request for ten years, 19 years, which seems a bit strange. And secondly, kind of related to that long period, there is, of course, the situation or risk that the offering party might go 13 for some changes in the meantime. It might go to liquidation, out of business. And the question is what happened then. We raise that to the right community. And this topic will be followed up. But I just wanted to make this comment here about this part as well. Thanks. >> JORDI PALET: Thanks, Marco. The point that you mentioned about the possible liquidation of the source is resolved in the policy. There is specific text that says at the end, or extended period APNIC is the one returning the registries to the original source. So in that sense if the original source is liquidated, I understand that it comes back to the registry. Because they are not paying for the fees, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Thanks, Jordi. Any more comments or questions? Do we have any comment online? No. >> JORDI PALET: I just realized that I didn't answer to the second question from Oscar. I answered only the first part. My understanding is that if you don't extend before 30 days, what happens is that you will need to do a new transfer according to the actual policy text. So it is not a problem on that. But you need to initiate the temporary transfer again if you miss the deadline of the 30 days. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Okay. If you have not logged on to Confer until now, I ask you to log in. I will request the staff to log in the Confer. You will have an opportunity to indicate whether you strongly support, support, neutral or you object to the proposal or strongly object to the proposal. If you indicate that you strongly oppose to the proposal, then you will be expected to explain the reason. If you strongly support the proposal, please put your hand up. Okay. If you support the proposal, please put your hand up. Okay. If you are neutral about the proposal, please put your hand up. Okay. Thanks. If you oppose to the proposal, please put your hand up. Thank you. If you strongly oppose to the proposal, please put your hand up. Thank you. Would you like to come -- oh, you have already come -- thank you. I have Confer -- I will now confer with my co-Chairs as the next step and come back. Thank you. I think this is the shortest conference which we have had. As the community has failed to reach a consensus on this proposal the Chairs will send this back to the mailing list and the author needs to consider whether it can be amended or should be amended. Thank you, Jordi, for all your -- >> JORDI PALET: I will ask the people that strongly oppose and the people that oppose to please come back to the mailing list, restate what they said here. I am happy to work in a new version in just a couple of days or weeks as soon as possible. 14 I hear that the main concern is linking this proposal to IPv6. I am happy to reconsider that. But I really want to hear that in the mailing list so we can also have discussion on that. Thank you. >> ANUPAM AGRAWAL: Thank you. Thank you, Jordi, once again. Back to Bertrand. >> BERTRAND CHERRIER: Thank you. As always comments on the mailing list are easy to remember because you can go back to them as much as you want.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
