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

Ricardo Patara patara at registro.br
Thu Apr 16 15:56:40 BRT 2015


> 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.

As Luis pointed out. It would not work out. There is the need of policy 

> 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.

I am aware that in ARIN the policy to allow out of region address space passed 
(correct me if wrong). This would allow you to use address in these DCs you 
mention as they will be part of your network.

> We would like to move that space into LACNIC to properly register it in
> the region. And it makes geolocation work much better.

Geolocation is an orthogonal problem. IP transfer would not be solution for that.

Big content companies should start to study this issue to come up with a proper 
solution. This will just became worst with CGNAT, for instance.

> It will not delay IPv6. It is unrelated to IPv6.  Companies must dual stack
> or risk not being competitive.

That is your opinion, I respected that. Experience had showed other scenario.

> This is only to help network operations in the LACNIC region.

 From my point of view, this is more to help out of the region organizations to 
operate their networks on their own interests. See no altruist intention here. 
Sorry to say that.

LACNIC have being in the termination period for almost a year now. Big (very 
big) organizations are still doing business pretty well. New operations have 
being implemented with good success also.

APNIC and RIPE NCC only started to have this type of transfer after their pools 
exhaustion (completly if I may). See no reason to start this type of process in 
our region now when still there IP addresses do distribute.


> 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

More information about the Politicas mailing list