[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva Propuesta LAC-2015-2? //New proposal LAC-2015-2? //Nova Proposta LAC-2015-2?

[David Huberman]

Thank you Luis!

ARIN does require reciprocal policy.  Does RIPE require reciprocity, and does APNIC require reciprocity?

This isn't just about ARIN.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Politicas [mailto:politicas-bounces at lacnic.net] On Behalf Of Luis
> Balbinot
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:51 AM
> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva Propuesta LAC-2015-2? //New
> proposal LAC-2015-2? //Nova Proposta LAC-2015-2?
> 
> Some RIRs require a reciprocal policy on Inter-RIR transfers (e.g.
> ARIN). I think that's Patara's concern.
> 
> Luis
> 
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:18 AM, David Huberman
> <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Hello Ricardo,
> >
> > The only purpose of this proposal is to allow networks which operate in
> LACNIC but have space elsewhere to move space INTO LACNIC.   If there is
> concern that language in the proposal that lets space leave LACNIC, let's fix
> that? There is no intent to move space out of LACNIC or the NIRs.
> >
> > I proposed this specifically because my company is spending BILLIONS of
> U.S. Dollars to build new datacenters in the region, as are other competitors.
> LACNIC has only /22s left, and will soon be exhausted completely.  As we
> need more and more IPv4 addresses in these datacenters, we can only use
> space we have in ARIN or RIPE.  We would like to move that space into
> LACNIC to properly register it in the region. And it makes geolocation work
> much better.
> >
> > It will not delay IPv6. It is unrelated to IPv6.  Companies must dual stack or
> risk not being competitive.
> >
> > This is only to help network operations in the LACNIC region.
> >
> > David R Huberman
> > Microsoft Corporation
> > Principal, Global IP Addressing
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> on behalf of Ricardo
> > Patara <patara at registro.br>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:57:24 AM
> > To: politicas at lacnic.net
> > Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva Propuesta LAC-2015-2? //New
> proposal LAC-2015-2? //Nova Proposta LAC-2015-2?
> >
> > Totally against this proposal.
> >
> > LACNIC still have IP address to distribute.
> >
> > There are two main and big risks I see on this:
> >
> > - delay even more IPv6 deployment
> > - massive out flow of IP to other regions (specially where there is no
> > need based analysis).
> >
> > So, no benefit to the region.
> > To me it seems very focused on helping big coprs out side our region
> > to get more and more addresses with no commitment (or low) to IPv6
> > deployment
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> >    Ricardo Patara
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Politicas mailing list
> > Politicas at lacnic.net
> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> > _______________________________________________
> > Politicas mailing list
> > Politicas at lacnic.net
> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas