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

[Scott Leibrand]

Español abajo / Spanish below

Luis and Ricardo,

Do I understand correctly that you're concerned about organizations
acquiring space from the remaining LACNIC reserved /11s and then
transferring it out of the LACNIC region (or transferring their existing
space and getting more from the reserved /11s)?

What if we modified 2.3.2.X.5 slightly to read "A block that has previously
been transferred *or received from LACNIC* may not subsequently be
transferred again for a period of one year"?

That modification complements David's already-proposed restriction 2.3.2.X4
that "The organization from which the transfer originated shall
automatically be ineligible to receive IPv4 resource allocations and/or
assignments from LACNIC for a period of one year".  With that modification,
the transfer of address blocks recently received from LACNIC would also be
disallowed.

Ricardo, would that help address your concern about "massive out flow of IP
to other regions"?

-Scott

Traducción al Español / Spanish translation:

Luis y Ricardo,

¿Entiendo correctamente que ustedes están preocupado acerca de las
organizaciones que adquieren espacio desde el restante LACNIC reservados /
11s y luego transferirlo fuera de la región de LACNIC (o transferencia de
su espacio existente y conseguir más de los reservados / 11s)?

¿Y si modificamos 2.3.2.X.5 ligeramente a leer "Un bloque que ha sido
previamente transferidos *o recibidos de LACNIC* no podrá posteriormente
ser trasladado de nuevo por un período de un año"?

Esa modificación complementa la restricción de 2.3.2.X4, ya propuesta de
David que "La organización de la que se originó la transferencia será
automáticamente elegible para recibir asignaciones y / o asignaciones de
recursos IPv4 de LACNIC para un período de un año".  Con esa modificación,
la transferencia de bloques de direcciones recientemente recibidos de
LACNIC también sería rechazado.

Ricardo, habría que ayudar a abordar su preocupación por "flujo masivo de
IP a otras regiones"?

-Scott

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Luis Balbinot <luis at luisbalbinot.com>
wrote:

> 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
>