[LAC-TF] Summary LAC IPv6 TF ---- September 16 - October 1st, 2009

[Mariela Rocha]

Summary of the e-mails sent to the LAC IPv6 TF mailing list ----- 
September 16 - October 1st, 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Subject: FAQ - Section 4

(Complete original messages available beginning at: 
http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lactf/2009-September/002504.html)

After Mariela Rocha’s (AR) proposal to continue building the IPv6 FAQ 
section, this time analyzing the "Questions relating to non-government 
organizations", Nicolás Antoniello (UY) proposed rephrasing the 
costs-related question in section 4 in order to clarify its meaning, 
suggesting the following wording:

"What actions can LACNIC undertake jointly with the community in order 
to support IPv6 deployment and that will result, for example, in lower 
implementation and operation costs?"

Sebastián Barrientos (CL) agreed with the modification proposed by Nicolás.

Jorge Villa (CU) also agreed with Nicolás. He proposed that LACNIC's 
efforts for taking the issue to governments at different forums should 
also be mentioned, stating that a question could also be added within 
this section to find out what activities this organization has conducted 
in relation to the issue, and possibly another question to mention the 
work of other NGOs of our region.

Mariela Rocha (AR) proposed two questions for the section based on what 
was stated in previous e-mails.

Fabián Mejía (EC) was of the opinion that the answer to the first 
question might be too long and include redundant information already 
included in other parts of the website and that, in addition, it would 
pose the risk of overlooking some organizations. Regarding the second 
question, he believes that instead of asking: "What can LACNIC do", the 
question should be: "what is LACNIC currently doing" but that, again, 
this would imply duplicating information already available on the 
Portal. Based on this, Fabián proposed including only links to concrete 
LACNIC projects.

Antonio Medina Gómez (CO) agreed with Fabián's comments, and added that 
there are different initiatives, such as those of the Colombian 
Association of Internet Users, that have not been brought to public light.

Jorge Villa (CU) joined the discussion once again, stating that it is 
important not to lose sight of the FAQ's intended audience and that, as 
they are intended for a regional audience, they should refer to those 
NGOs whose actions transcend a specific country. He agreed with the 
wording of the questions drafted by Mariela Rocha.

In light of Jorge's comments, Fabián Mejía (EC) proposed a new wording 
for the questions.

Nicolás Antoniello (UY) commented on Fabián's proposal, manifesting that 
the extension and scope of the questions is the responsibility of all 
those who are creating the FAQ section, as has been the case until now. 
He also agreed with Jorge in that, in so far as possible, the FAQ 
section should be self-contained and that it should not be necessary to 
browse to read the results. Regarding the actions that LACNIC could 
undertake, Nicolás disagreed with Fabián stating that in his opinion 
this question is not utopian, saying: "Attempting to compile, in the 
forum and in this part of the FAQ, the actions that the community 
believes LACNIC could undertake is not utopian at all."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Subject: /48 blocks

(Complete original messages available beginning at: 
http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lactf/2009-September/002531.html)

Fabián Mejía (EC) asked the members of the list what their experiences 
have been in terms of the routing of /48 prefixes in major operators' 
BGP networks, and whether or not they have ever been blocked. He also 
asked whether there are any restrictions in this sense.

Ricardo Patara (LACNIC) replied by sharing LACNIC's experience with the 
matter. He said that, when the organization began routing /48 prefixes, 
it was necessary to work with the different providers in order to verify 
that the filters would allow these announcements. In order to avoid 
problems, he recommended verifying that ISPs maintain their filters up 
to date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------