[LACNIC/Politicas] [LAC-TF] Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Jul 19 13:17:13 BRT 2005 

Si, pero entiendo que si se cambia a /56 (por ejemplo), la politica de
registro WHOIS tambien habra de cambiar.

Es decir, creo que una cosa en cierto modo no afecta a la otra (el no usar
/48 no va a impedir el registro en el WHOIS), aunque estan vinculadas.

De todos modos este registro puede ser automatizado, es decir, no implica
una carga administrativa, y por la parte legal de privacidad, con la cual
estoy totalmente de acuerdo que sea obligatorio el registro (al igual que el
registro de un numero de telefono), pero no obligatoria su publicidad.

Saludos,
Jordi




> De: German Valdez <german at lacnic.net>
> Organización: LACNIC
> Responder a: "lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org" <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>
> Fecha: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:29:41 -0300
> Para: <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>, <rgaglian at adinet.com.uy>
> CC: <politicas at lacnic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [LAC-TF] [LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd:I-D
> ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
> 
> 
> Hola 
> 
> Creo que Roque ha hecho una observacion muy interesante. Efectivamente, las
> reasignaciones de un /48 deberan registrarse en el WHOIS asi sea a usuarios
> residenciales por lo que la politica de privacidad que se planteo dias atras
> vuelve a resultar interesante analizar.
> 
> La decision de implementar o no esquemas de privacidad de datos en la base
> de datos WHOIS de LACNIC es un tema que recae directamente en los miembros
> de la lista de politicas y asistentes al foro publico. Si bien tiene aristas
> legales la decision de si LACNIC debe implementar una politica similar es de
> ustedes. En otras regiones tal como lo menciona Marcelo  el tema de
> privacidad de datos fue resuelto dejando a decision del ISP cuales
> asignaciones de sus clientes serian publicos a traves del WHOIS pero en
> definitiva todas las reasignaciones se registran la diferencia es determinar
> si son publicas o no.
> 
> La cuestion es determinar si hay una necesidad de un cambio asi y si hay
> quienes lo apoyen
> 
> Saludos
> 
>  German Valdez
> LACNIC
> Potosi 1517
> Montevideo Uruguay 11500
> http://www.lacnic.net
> Participe en el desarrolo de politicas publicas en LACNIC
> Suscribase en http://lacnic.net/sp/lists.html
> 
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: lactf-bounces at lac.ipv6tf.org
>> [mailto:lactf-bounces at lac.ipv6tf.org] En nombre de marcelo
>> bagnulo braun
>> Enviado el: Martes, 19 de Julio de 2005 06:00 a.m.
>> Para: rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>> CC: lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org; politicas at lacnic.net
>> Asunto: Re: [LAC-TF] [LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd:I-D
>> ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>> 
>> Hola Roque,
>> 
>> no he seguido muy de cerca este ultimo tema que mencionas,
>> pero creo recordar que en otras regiones solucionaron esto
>> dejando a discrecion del ISP si poner o no en el WHOIS los
>> datos de los clientes finales, por lo que no me queda claro
>> que esto sea un problema grave, pero como dije no estoy muy
>> puesto en esto, asi que si me podes corregir...?
>> 
>> saludos, marcelo
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> El 19/07/2005, a las 2:10, rgaglian at adinet.com.uy escribió:
>> 
>>> Creo que un punto que no podemos perder desde el punto de
>> vista de los 
>>> operadores es que si se mantiene el /48 como unidad de
>> asignación, se 
>>> deberá registrar a cada usuario residencial (ADSL, etc) en
>> la base de 
>>> datos Whois, con el correspondiente costo administrativo y con un
>>> agravamiento de los problemas de confidencialidad ya planteados en
>>> esta lista.
>>> 
>>> Roque
>>> 
>>>> -- Mensaje original --
>>>> Cc: lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org, politicas at lacnic.net
>>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
>>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd:
>>>> I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:52:02 +0200
>>>> To: rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hola Roque,
>>>> 
>>>> si, a mi me parece un disparate tambien
>>>> 
>>>> tener en cuenta que la eficiencia requerida resultante del
>> uso del HD 
>>>> ratio para un /19 es de 1,8%!!!!
>>>> 
>>>> ademas, en 
>> draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt se lantea
>>>> un ejemplo que me parece ilustrar muy bien tu preocupacion, lo
>>>> transcribo para uds.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4.1.  An example: Cable Modem/DSL Service in US
>>>> 
>>>>    In the hallway at a recent ARIN meeting, I was cornered
>> by someone
>>>>    who had done a back-of-the envelope calculation that led him to
>>>>    believe the current policies needed adjustment. The
>> argument went
>>>>    like:
>>>> 
>>>>       If I assign 4M /48Ç«÷s of IPv6 (one to each cable modem on my
>>>>       network), according to the HD-ratio I am justified to obtain
>>>>       something around a /20 of IPv6 addresses.  In other
>> words, I am
>>>>       justified in getting 268M /48Ç«÷s even though I am
>> only using 
>>>> 4M
>>> 
>>>> of
>>>>       them.  That would be enough for me to assign at least two for
>>>>       every household in the US (not just the 19M on my network).
>>>> 
>>>>       Now if all the cable providers (e.g., Comcast, Cox, Adelphia,
>>>>       Cablevision, Time-Warner, etc.) did the same for
>> their networks;
>>>>       and each of the DSL companies made a similar move
>> (SBC, Verizon,
>>>>       Quest, etc.); perhaps we could easily see the
>> broadband market
>>>> in
>>>>       the US alone obtaining some 16 /20Ç«÷s of IPv6 or a total of
>>>> /16.
>>>>       There are only 8192 of those available in the current global
>>>>       unicast space of 2001::/3.
>>>> 
>>>>       Anyhow, you can see where this might lead...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Saludos, marcelo
>>>> 
>>>> PD: este tema se esta discutiendo en la lista global-v6
>>>> global-v6 mailing list
>>>> global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>>>> seria bueno que enviaramos nuestros comentarios ahi, de
>> forma que las 
>>>> opiniones del lacnic tambien se tomen en cuenta
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> El 17/07/2005, a las 6:56, rgaglian at adinet.com.uy escribió:
>>>> 
>>>>> Marcelo,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hace tiempo que queria contestarte este correo con un
>> comentario que 
>>>>> he escuchado más de una vez.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ¿¿¿Cómo hizo D-Telecom para justificar un /19???
>>>>> 
>>>>> No he estudiado mucho las políticas actuales de RIPE pero
>> claramente 
>>>>> se desprende del resto de los RIR por estos bloques gigantes de
>>>>> direcciones asignados a algunos proveedores.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Un /19 se podría dividir en 539 millones de /48. Es mi
>> impresión que 
>>>>> el plan de numeración que utilizaron (y amparados en el
>> RFC vigente) 
>>>>> da un
>>>>> /48
>>>> 
>>>>> a
>>>>> cada usuario DSL y A CADA CELULAR.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lo que es interesante es que el draft, a primera vista,
>> no estudia 
>>>>> la
>>> 
>>>>> asignación
>>>>> de direcciones para empresas celulares/moviles.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Un abrazo
>>>>> 
>>>>> Roque
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- Mensaje original --
>>>>>> To: lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org, politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:39:33 +0200
>>>>>> Subject: [LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd: I-D
>>>>>> ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> fyi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Inicio mensaje reenviado:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> De: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
>>>>>>> Fecha: 12 de julio de 2005 21:50:03 GMT+02:00
>>>>>>> Para: i-d-announce at ietf.org
>>>>>>> Asunto: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>>> Responder a: internet-drafts at ietf.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>> Internet-Drafts 
>>>>>>> directories.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Title  : IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites
>>>>>>> Author(s) : T. Narten, et al.
>>>>>>> Filename : 
>> draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>>> Pages  : 8
>>>>>>> Date  : 2005-7-12
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    This document revisits the IAB/IESG recommendations on the
>>>>>>> assignment
>>>>>>>    of IPv6 address space to end sites. Specifically, it
>> indicates 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>    changing the default end-site assignment for typical
>> home and 
>>>>>>> SOHO
>>>>>>>    sites from /48 to /56 is consistent with the goals
>> of IPv6 and 
>>>>>>> RFC
>>>>>>>    3177. Although it is for the RIR community to make
>> adjustments 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>    IPv6 address space allocation and end site
>> assignment policies,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>    IETF community would be comfortable with RIRs changing the
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>    assignment size to /56 for smaller end sites. This document
>>>>>>> obsoletes
>>>>>>>    RFC 3177 and reclassifies it as historic.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis
>>>>>>> -48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send
>> a message 
>>>>>>> to i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word
>> unsubscribe in the
>>>>>>> body
>>> 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> the message.
>>>>>>> You can also visit
>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
>>>>>>> to change your subscription settings.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with
>>>>>>> the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address.
>>>>>>> After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
>>>>>>> "get draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Send a message to:
>>>>>>> mailserv at ietf.org.
>>>>>>> In the body type:
>>>>>>> "FILE
>>>>>>> /internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
>>>>>>> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.
>>  To use this
>>>>>>> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime"
>> before the "FILE"
>>>>>>> command.  To decode the response(s), you will
>> need "munpack" or
>>>>>>> a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different
>> MIME-compliant mail
>>>>>>> readers
>>>>>>> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
>>>>>>> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which
>> have been split
>>>>>>> up into multiple messages), so check your local
>> documentation on
>>>>>>> how to manipulate these messages.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant
>> mail reader 
>>>>>>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII
>> version of the 
>>>>>>> Internet-Draft.
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>>>>>> Content-ID: <2005-7-12130012.I-D at ietf.org>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>>>>>> I-D-Announce at ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>> http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ing.Roque Gagliano
>>>>> rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>> http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ing.Roque Gagliano
>>> rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Politicas mailing list
>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>> http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACTF mailing list
>> LACTF at lac.ipv6tf.org
>> http://lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LACTF mailing list
> LACTF at lac.ipv6tf.org
> http://lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf




************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the Politicas mailing list