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

[Lam, Jorge]

Hi everybody,

I am also against this policy, but I understand what it is trying to solve. Geolocation is something that has many comments in favor and against, but don't matter what we think geolocation is being used more each day and have many issues that I understand David is trying to solve with this policy. 

Thanks,
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Politicas [mailto:politicas-bounces at lacnic.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman
Sent: martes, 14 de abril de 2015 09:19 a.m.
To: politicas at lacnic.net
Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva Propuesta LAC-2015-2? //New proposal LAC-2015-2? //Nova Proposta LAC-2015-2?

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