[LACNIC/Politicas] Politica de asignación de bloques IPv6 (sobre LACNIC-2007-01)

Mon Jun 1 17:57:06 BRT 2009

Hola,

Creo que este tipo de mensajes parecen partidistas viniendo de un co-chair
que ha presentado (aunque anteriormente) esta politica, savo que indiques
tambien que esta siendo una discusion polemica y que tambien tiene muchos
detractores.

Es mas, soy de la opinion que un co-chair deberia de inhibirse o bien de
propuestas, o bien de comentarios de las mismas salvo que expresamente (como
se hace en IETF) indique que es un comentario a titulo personal y para nada
como co-chair, y aun asi, siempre habra muchos participantes de la lista que
se dejen guiar mas por la opinion de un co-chair, es un hecho objetivo.

Creo que es importante recalcar que esta discusion, activa desde hace unos
dias en RIPE, y ahora en ARIN, esta siendo muy polemica y claro que tiene
gente a favor, pero tambien mucha gente en contra (lo cual indica, que por
el momento no hay consenso), y es importante insistir en lo que he indicado
en el correo anterior contestando a Scott, asi como lo que comente en otro
correo y en la reunion.

Si permitimos la desagregacion TODOS pagaremos un alto coste. Si no se
permite la agregacion, ese coste lo paga solo el proveedor que tiene que
usar tecnicas alternativas, por muy costosas que estas pueda parecer, sera
siempre un coste menor.

Ademas, cuando realmente haga falta desagregar, como tambien se comento en
la reunion, dispondremos de implementaciones de LISP en todos los routers y
por tanto, tendremos otra solucion que no conllevara costes para nadie.

Saludos,
Jordi

> From: Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "Lista para discusió n de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC"
> <politicas at lacnic.net>
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:04:34 -0300
> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
> <politicas at lacnic.net>
> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Politica de asignación de bloques IPv6 (sobre
> LACNIC-2007-01)
> 
> Estimados,
> 
> Continuando con la discusión, les adjunto (mas abajo) una propuesta,
> esta vez de la comunidad de ARIN, que va en el mismo sentido que el
> que les planteaba en la argumentación: quitar de las políticas las
> referencias a técnicas o prácticas de Routing.
> 
> Sobre todo resalto la parte de la argumentación que dice:
> 
> ..."Removing the requirement for a single aggregate announcement
> benefits the NRPM itself, as it has been decided by the community that
> it should not contain routing advice."...
> 
> ¿Que opinan?
> Sigamos entonces con la sana discusión !!
> 
> Saludos,
> Nicolas.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Member Services <info at arin.net>
> Date: May 29, 2009 12:14:45 PM GMT-03:00
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
> 
> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with Policy Development
> Process.
> 
> This proposal is in the first stage of the Policy Development Process.
> ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff does
> not evaluate the proposal at this time, their goal is to make sure that
> they understand the proposal and believe the community will as well.
> Staff will report their results to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within
> 10 days.
> 
> The AC will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled
> meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is
> less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent
> regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the
> proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
> 
> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on
> the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> 
> Mailing list subscription information can be found
> at:https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ## * ##
> 
> 
> Policy Proposal Name: Open Access To IPv6
> 
> Proposal Originator: Stacy Hughes and Cathy Aronson
> 
> Proposal Version: 1.0
> 
> Date: 29 May 2009
> 
> Proposal type: modify
> 
> Policy term: permanent
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> 1) Remove ³by advertising that connectivity through its single
> aggregated address allocation² from article 3 of section 6.5.1.1
> 
> 2) Remove article 4 of section 6.5.1.1, ³be an existing, known ISP in
> the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200 end-site
> assignments to other organizations within 5 years² in its entirety.
> 
> Rationale: It is acknowledged that these concepts have been put before
> the community in the past. However, with the wisdom of actual
> operational experience, the necessity of promoting IPv6 adoption
> throughout our region, and emerging native v6 only network models, it
> becomes obvious that these modifications to the NRPM are necessary.
> Removing the 200 end site requirement enables smaller, but no less
> important and viable, networks access to IPv6. Removing the Œknown ISP¹
> requirement enfranchises new, native v6 businesses that can drive
> innovation and expansion in the Internet industry, as well as other
> industries. Removing the requirement for a single aggregate announcement
> benefits the NRPM itself, as it has been decided by the community that
> it should not contain routing advice.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: immediately upon BoT ratification
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas

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

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

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.