[LACNIC/Politicas] Summary LACNIC Policy Discussion March 1st - 12th

Tue Mar 13 11:46:30 BRT 2007

Hola Germán,
		Buenisimo el esfuerzo.
fraterno
js
El 13/03/2007, a las 11:17, German Valdez escribió:

>
> Friends,
>
> In an effort to promote the participation of other sectors of the  
> Internet
> community of Latin America and the Caribbean as well as of other  
> regions, we
> will begin sending weekly summaries, in English of the issues  
> presented and
> discussed on LACNIC's mailing lists.
>
> We would also like to take the opportunity to remind you that  
> LACNIC mailing
> lists are also open to contributions in English and Portuguese.
>
> Summary of the discussions held on the Public Policy List between  
> March
> 1-12.
>
> MULTICAST ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT POLICY
>
> A proposal was presented by Guillermo Cicileo (March 1) for LACNIC  
> to join
> other RIRs to instantiate RFC 3138, which defines a range of  
> addresses to be
> used for multicast applications (in case other solutions such as  
> SSM, GLOP,
> etc. cannot be used). Concretely, the proposal requests that LACNIC  
> assign a
> /20 block, just as ARIN is doing. The detailed proposal, in  
> English, can be
> found included in the message at the following address:
>
> http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2007-March/006879.html
>
> It was clarified that the blocks specified in RFC 3138 are not  
> routable
> addresses but are within the multicast address range (224.0.0.0 to
> 239.255.255.255). They are used to represent "multicast groups" to  
> which
> senders and receivers can subscribe but are not present in normal  
> routing
> tables. The RFC mentions that within this segment there is an  
> assignable
> range that may be distributed by all RIRs.
>
> In addition, it was noted that IANA is already assigning these  
> addresses.
> The justification for RIRs to participate in the assignment of these
> segments is taken from the proposal's original author, who argues  
> that small
> companies that need addresses do not have access to IANA while large
> companies do, despite the fact that IANA staff has denied the latter
> allegation.
>
> It was observed that there is no need for a similar policy, as this  
> would
> imply assigning RIRs space reserved by the IETF, in addition to  
> requiring a
> global policy which would demand a lot of time and effort. It was  
> suggested
> to focus efforts on IPv6 multicast, as IPv4 has not had the  
> anticipated
> success. It was added that in order for RIRs to provide this  
> service there
> might be a cost for the service involved, something which does not  
> currently
> happen with IANA.
>
> The current status of this discussion is that the Policy Mailing List
> moderator has suggested that the person who presented the proposal  
> send an
> e-mail explaining the use of multicast addresses.
>
> PROPOSAL FOR PROVIDER-INDEPENDENT IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END-USER
> ORGANIZATIONS.
>
> A proposal was presented by Jordi Palet (March 6) for the  
> allocation of
> provider-independent IPv6 space to organizations that are considered
> end-users. In order to qualify for such blocks the applicant cannot  
> be an
> ISP/LIR and must qualify for receiving IPv4 space from LACNIC. The  
> minimum
> size of said allocation must be a /48, although based on the  
> documentation
> it could be larger.
>
> This issue is now open for comments.
>
> REPORT ON THE IPv4 COUNTDOWN PROPOSAL
>
> This report, sent by Ricardo Patara (Registry Services Manager),  
> describes
> the discussion generated at the APNIC 23 meeting in relation to the  
> IPv4
> Countdown proposal.
>
> Basically, this proposal proposes establishing a specific date for the
> exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool available for making  
> allocations. The
> proposal further stated that this should be implemented globally in  
> all RIRs
> so as to act in a synchronized manner. The final date would be  
> calculated
> according to the number of free IPv4 blocks in the IANA pool. This  
> date
> would be established as two years as of the date the pool of free  
> blocks
> reaches 30 /8s.
>
> The intention of the proposal is to allow ISPs to have a plan for  
> migrating
> to IPv6 as, once the final date is established, ISPs will know  
> without any
> doubt the deadline as of which it will not be possible to receive IPv4
> allocations.
>
> During the session other ways of dealing with the problem were  
> suggested
> that did not imply the use of an artificial exhaustion date.  
> Concern was
> expressed that this proposal would not benefit small regions such  
> as LACNIC
> and AFRINIC because it would stimulate a demand for IPv4 blocks,  
> increasing
> even further the consumption rate in the more developed regions. In  
> the
> meantime LACNIC would continue to allocate from its own space  
> already in
> use, and it is highly probable that when the final date arrived  
> LACNIC's
> pool would be exhausted or almost exhausted. This would represent a
> situation of inequitableness among the different regions.
>
> After comments were posted, the person who had made the proposal  
> decided not
> to seek consensus for the policy as originally presented.
>
> End of report. No further comments have arrived so far.
>
> -- 
> German Valdez
> LACNIC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas

Jose Soriano
js at comunicarte.org
http://onairosjs.wordpress.com/
http://interred.wordpress.com/
Encontrado en la red:Se decidió entonces que el que más tenía más  
pagaba. No hubo tiempo para llamarle a esa práctica soborno, porque  
el que más pagaba eligió llamarlo Justicia.