[LACNIC/Politicas] [EN] Summary of Public Policy List discussions

[Ricardo Patara]

Summary of Public Policy List discussions from 1st March to 13 April,  
2009.


[LAC 2009-02] IPv6 Allocations to ISPs or LIRs with previous IPv4  
allocations

Gustavo Lozano Ibarra presented a proposal regarding the distribution  
of IPv6 addresses to those LIRs/ISPs that have already received IPv4  
allocations without having to justify their applications. The  
rationale behind this proposal is that, in order to obtain IPv4  
resources, the LIR/ISP already had to provide sufficient justification  
of its need for addressing space and therefore the organization  
qualifies for receiving IPv6 resources. This contributes to promote  
the deployment of IPv6 within the region. A similar policy already  
exists for the assignment of provider-independent addresses to end  
users.

The full text of the policy can be found at:
ttp://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-02-propuesta-sp.pdf

No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this  
proposal.


[LAC 2009-03] ASPLAIN Notation for 32-bit ASNs

Blanca Gámez Flores presented a proposal seeking to modify the current  
policy for the allocation of autonomous system numbers in order to  
adopt the “asplain” decimal value representation as the textual  
notation to use for 32-bit AS numbers (within the decimal range 0 –  
4294967295), abandoning the “asdot2” format. The rationale behind this  
proposal is the almost unanimous support of the use of “asplain” on  
the part of the operator community, as it is the format which is most  
compatible with current operating systems, it provides lower  
resistance to the deployment and adoption of 32-bit only AS numbers,  
and it does not break the regular expression applied to the AS-PATH  
attribute. To avoid confusion, a single “asplain” textual notation is  
useful for documentation, systems configuration, reports, and external  
tools and information repositories.


The full text of the policy can be found at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-03-propuesta-sp.pdf

No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this  
proposal.


[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region

Blanca Gámez, Gustavo Lozano, Julio Cossío and Francisco Arias  
presented a proposal regarding the transfer of IPv4 blocks among  
different organizations within the region. The rationale of this  
proposal states that, faced with the imminent impossibility on the  
part of LACNIC of providing IPv4 resources to the members of its  
community due to the fact that these resources will soon be depleted,  
it is proposed that the transfer of IPv4 address blocks between  
members of the LACNIC community be enabled. The authors also consider  
that, faced with the possibility of the emergence of an IPv4 resource  
transfer market, it is convenient to maintain LACNIC’s Registration  
function.

This policy allows the transfer of IPv4 resources among organizations  
of the LACNIC region, provided that the receiving organization  
justifies the need for said resources based on the policies in force.  
In order to avoid the transfer of resources for speculative purposes,  
the policy proposes that, once an IPv4 block has been transferred,  
said block cannot be transferred again for a period of one year.  
Likewise, an organization that transfers IPv4 resources may not  
request new allocations/assignments from LACNIC for a period of one  
year.

Because of the economic disparities that exist among the different  
regions, the transfer of IPv4 resources administrated by LACNIC to  
organizations in other regions is expressly forbidden.

The full text of the proposal can be found at:

http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-sp.pdf

This policy originated major discussions on the policy list. These  
discussions can be found at: http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2009-March/thread.html 
  and http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2009-April/thread.html

The main objection that was raised is that, instead of returning the  
resources to LACNIC, this policy would allow direct transfer of  
resources among different organizations. A modification to the  
original policy was proposed, according to which the organization that  
transfers resources must return them to LACNIC, who will be in charge  
of assigning them to the candidate at the top of a list of potential  
recipients:

“The organization in which the resources originate shall return the  
block to LACNIC, who will assign it to the first candidate at the top  
of the list of applicants (if the offered block is smaller than the  
size requested by the candidate, LACNIC must inquire whether the  
candidate is willing to accept a smaller allocation or will “wait” for  
the next available transfer).
In no case may blocks be directly transferred between an originating  
and a receiving organization. LACNIC shall decide the assignment of  
these resources in accordance with the bylaws and assignment policies  
in force, with no intervention on the part of the organization  
originating the transfer.”

It was also suggested that all proposals for transferring resources be  
disregarded and to focus instead on the return of resources to LACNIC,  
providing, if necessary, financial incentives for those who return  
resources. The fact that IP addresses have no owner and therefore it  
would not be proper for an organization to profit from this resources  
was mentioned, something that could happen within the framework of the  
direct transfer of resources from one organization to another.

The authors of this policy proposed complementing it with a “voluntary  
return of resources” policy, separate from the “resource transfer”  
policy. On the other hand, it was suggested that any proposal for the  
transfer of resources be disregarded and to work on strengthening  
existing proposals for voluntary returns, seeking to find incentives  
for those organizations that return unutilized resources.

It was also suggested that it would be necessary to analyze the  
consequences of these policies from a legal point of view to determine  
what type of rights would be violated.

No agreement was reached on the mailing list; discussions continue.


[LAC 2009-05] Allocation of 16-bit only ASNs

Blanca Gámez, Gustavo Lozano, Julio Cossío and Francisco Arias  
presented a proposal regarding the possibility of obtaining 16-bit AS  
numbers during the final ASN allocation phase. This AS number  
allocation would only be made in exceptional cases, subject to the  
presentation of the appropriate technical justification. This proposal  
is based on the rationale that technological changes are usually  
accompanied by undetected problems and variables. The authors consider  
that the impossibility of requesting 16-bit only AS numbers even when  
resources are still available goes against the goal of maintaining  
Internet stability upheld by the LACNIC community.


The full text of the proposal is available at:

http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-05-propuesta-sp.pdf

No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this  
proposal.