[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-9
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Wed Oct 30 14:37:05 -03 2019
Hello
I agree this isn't probably something very nice to IPv4 market, but I
believe the most important should be looked is the obvious scenario: If
someone is assuming he doesn't have usage for some IP space anymore it
is not fair with all others for that to keep that space, and therefore
it must be returned to RIR pool. Any justifications the organization who
is willing to transfer may have to give would after 7.1 section has been
triggered, if so.
I am not against IPv4 market and fully recognized the need of its
existence, but it must never overcome the interests of the RIR
community. If the interest of both match, fine, no problem to have
policies to facilitate as we have for transfers now a days, but if some
policy is being proposed just for the interest of IPv4 market it doesn't
necessarily mean it is good for the community.
A perfect example would be to allow organizations to keep unused and
unjustified space just to increase its value while many other have the
needs of them to exist in the Internet.
With regards this proposal I understand it doesn't change anything
regarding to these points. My view about recover of IP space that can't
be justified upon a transfer should be valid as the policy already is
and even if this proposal passes would remain the same. However this
topic is polemic and may require a much more extensive discussion which
we may be more productive in another thread. At the beginning of this
discussion I asked for clarification and I think it has been
sufficiently clarified for the moment.
Regards
Fernando
On 30/10/2019 14:08, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. Jordi did say there might be an interpretation issue.
>
> So you are saying if I decide to sell my block to a buyer, and the buyer fails to justify to LACNIC, then the addresses are returned to LACNIC?
> This will kill the market, it's an unacceptable risk for any seller.
>
> Totally against this policy.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:55 PM
> To: politicas at lacnic.net
> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-9
>
> There is some misinterpretation of what was said on another thread.
>
> One thing doesn't have to do with the other. One thing is to sell part of assigned resources, and that doesn't necessarily mean the resources were unused until the point(may or may not), but mean they are not needed anymore. Another totally different is someone that deliberately doesn't use resources in order to 'heat their value' for selling. This is a total misuse of IP addresses propose and in this case they must be revoked.
>
> What has been discussed in another thread was that in my view that when someone declares is transferring resources to another organization he is assuming these resources are not needed anymore for their organization (that's pretty obvious!), and in the case the recipient fails to justify the need for them, they must be recovered to the RIR pool in order to be assigned to someone else who needs and justify usage. While this may not happen automatically it is very much possible for the RIR to trigger section 7.1 in such case.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 30/10/2019 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> El 30/10/19 16:20, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
>>
>> Hi Jordi,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>> Again sorry for the English, but I don't really get your first sentence meaning clearly:
>> " the staff has confirmed (responding to Fernando questioning), that transfers are in fact, authorizing the fact that you no longer justify the need."
>>
>> Are you saying the LACNIC staff has confirmed that transfers of unused address space is OK?
>>
>> ** Unless I misinterpreted it, that's correct. Fernando was arguing that if there is unused space, it must be returned, not transferred, which clearly will mean that we don't need transfer policies. Here is the link to the specific message:
>>
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2019-August/005000.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I know that this is true, having brokered most of the transfers down there, but we find that many participants fear to tell the truth to LACNIC when asked about the purpose of the transfer. We advise them to say they are selling the block to the recipient. But they won't do this because they fear that LACNIC will use their existing contractual right to revoke the space.
>>
>> So instead there are stories of partnerships or joint endeavors or things like this, which should not be necessary. As a broker, can I tell them legitimately that if LACNIC learns they are no longer using the space, its okay? Their lawyers say different things after reading the RSA.
>>
>> ** I think so! Reproducing here that part of the text:
>>
>> "Sobre la segunda consulta, el staff de LACNIC entiende que la
>> política
>> 2.3.2.18 fue desarrollada con el espíritu de permitir que una
>> organización que tenga (o prevea tener) recursos ociosos pueda
>> transferirlos a otra organización, posibilitando al mismo tiempo
>> registrar estas transacciones con LACNIC y mantener de esta forma la
>> calidad de la información contenida en el Registro.
>>
>> Son numerosas las situaciones que pueden originar este tipo de
>> transferencias y no es un requisito de la política explicitar el
>> motivo por el cual se solicita la misma. Es por esto que durante el
>> proceso no se profundiza en este tema ni se evalúa iniciar un proceso
>> de revocación ante un intento de transferencia fallida porque el
>> receptor no justifica la necesidad de los recursos, sino que el
>> análisis se concentra en lo que indica la política, que es la
>> justificación de recursos, verificar la titularidad del recurso a transferir y que esté libre de disputas."
>>
>>
>> I would appreciate it if LACNIC staff came out clearly on this list and immunized potential sellers of unused space from threats of revocation should they seek to bring them to the transfer market.
>>
>> This discussion has nothing to do with the requirement of the buyer to demonstrate justified need to LACNIC.
>>
>> It's not simply a matter of better documentation in the RSA. The policy says you can sell space but the RSA says if don’t use it you must return it or be subject to revocation. These are opposites, not just surface issues.
>>
>> However, I concur with you that the paltry number of regional transfers are due to reasons other than this seller fear.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> I understand your point; however, the staff has confirmed (responding to Fernando questioning), that transfers are in fact, authorizing the fact that you no longer justify the need.
>>
>> Otherwise, transfers will never be allowed. I think actual efficient utilization is very well reflected also in this proposal.
>>
>> This could be, as you said, better documented in the RSA, but this is out of the scope of the PDP.
>>
>> I think the lack of transfers in LACNIC is because there aren't too many "free" resources within the region. I'm sure this will change after July 2020, once the inter-RIR policy is in place.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>>
>>
>>
>> El 24/10/19 17:20, "Politicas en nombre de Mike Burns" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Sorry for the English.
>> I am certainly for updating the ancient text in section 7 of the NRPM as it no longer fits with an Ipv4 market.
>> The non-Lacnic market for IPv4 has been a success, it is the largest method of distributing Ipv4 addresses to those who need them.
>> In LACNIC, we are behind the other RIRs that instituted markets earlier, and there is policy work that needs to be done to accommodate and foster the IPv4 market.
>>
>> First and foremost, ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC have removed the ability to revoke addresses for utilization. The reason for this is very simple, if you take the time to think about it.
>>
>> If I want to sell my addresses, LACNIC policy mandates that I continue to utilize them at the same time I am attempting to sell them. As somebody involved in nearly 1,000 market transfers, I can say that buyers normally want un-routed addresses because if they continue to be utilized, the buyer can't be sure they won't be blacklisted the day before transfer, or that all the route advertisements will stop after transfer. If I want to advertise my clean and unused block on the market, I am subject to LACNIC revocation. This stifles the market.
>>
>> What the other RIRs have learned through experience is that threats of revocation for utilization are not as effective at fostering efficient use of address space as the profit motive is. The profit motive has brought large swathes of unused space to the market to be sold to those who use the space, whereas threats of revocation were less successful in refilling the pool of available Ipv4.
>>
>> Maintaining (and in the case of comments here actually adding to) restrictions designed and adopted during the free pool era is a mistake because it works against the market. This community decided to adopt a market for paid IPv4 transfers as the correct paradigm to handle the era of exhaust. But so far, it has taken only a half-step, and needs to complete this transition.
>>
>> I would support this policy if it removed utilization and location issues from the reasons for review.
>> Additionally, a change to the contract or Registration Services Agreement should also take place to remove utilization as a reason for revocation.
>>
>> Otherwise the LACNIC IPv4 market will remain in it's relatively anemic state and pressures for out-of-policy activity will increase.
>> Look at the transfer log for LACNIC after several years of transfers and compare it to any other registry.
>> If the community wants a market to handle IPv4 distributions, the results so far are pathetic.
>> If the community wants a heavy-handed monitoring and revocation method for handling IPv4 distributions, it is doomed to fail expensively.
>> Especially as LACNIC seeks to join the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC market next July, it should be seeking to reconcile its policies with those other RIRs, not insert anti-market policies.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike Burns
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
>> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:27 AM
>> To: politicas at lacnic.net
>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta
>> LAC-2019-9
>>
>> Queridos colegas
>>
>> Creo que esta propuesta tiene un buen propósito y tiene la base para ser una propuesta, lo cual es, en mi opinión, una necesidad: actualizar o mejorar y aclarar el texto para guiar a LACNIC y los NIR en una de las tareas más difíciles de lograr, la revocación de recursos.
>> Con esto no estoy diciendo que estoy 100% de acuerdo con la integridad del texto, sino que necesitamos, por mas complejo que sea, debatir en detalle y realizar las mejoras necesarias para lograr el objetivo principal de mejorar el texto actual que trata este tema.
>>
>> Por ejemplo, aclarar la necesidad de utilizar más del 50% de los recursos en la región y aumentar el plazo para anunciar recursos de 30 a
>> 90 días son buenos puntos para actualizar el manual de políticas.
>> También es bueno dar una definición automática de los recursos IPv6 y ASN que no se han definido hasta ahora (principalmente para ASN de 16 bits).
>>
>> Así que creo que necesitamos "refinar" el texto, enviar nuestras sugerencias específicas sobre cada parte y esperar la colaboración del autor para los cambios que son consensuados por esta comunidad. Y salvo por mi error, creo que hubo pocos mensajes analizando el texto y enviando sugerencias de cambio o eliminación del texto propuesto.
>>
>> Sobre la propuesta de dividir en múltiplos, tiendo a tener cierta resistencia porque, en mi opinión, haría aún más difícil avanzar estos cambios. Pero si la comunidad considera necesario no me opondría. Será necesario sin embargo definir exactamente cómo dividirlo en diferentes temas para que ambas propuestas tengan claras sus intenciones.
>>
>> En resumen: creo que es necesario actualizar el texto. Quizás todavía el propuesto todavía necesita alguna mejora.
>>
>> Saludos Cordiales
>> Fernando Frediani
>>
>> On 23/10/2019 18:39, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas wrote:
>> > Hola Nico,
>> >
>> > Repito lo que le acabo de indicar a Ricardo.
>> >
>> > Si queremos avanzar y no ir teniendo mas y mas propuestas, tenemos que madurar como comunidad, y aceptar que algunas propuestas deben ser mas extensas que otras.
>> >
>> > Si revisas el PDF que en su momento envié a la lista, a dos columnas, o incluso las diapositivas, verás que puede parecer complejo, pero en realidad no lo es. La gran mayoría de los cambios evitan duplicar textos que ya están, permiten que un texto que hoy "según el manual" solo aplica a IPv4, aplique también a IPv6 y ASN, e inconsistencias parecidas.
>> >
>> > La alternativa, es romper la propuesta en 3 o 4 y que el staff nos de varios días para el foro ... y sabemos cual es la respuesta. Insisto en que quejarse de complejidad o extensión no es una justificación razonable para oponerse.
>> >
>> > Cuando presenté, esta propuesta, por primera vez, en la lista, hice varias preguntas a la lista. Puedo contar con la mitad de los dedos de una mano las respuestas ...
>> >
>> > Saludos,
>> > Jordi
>> > @jordipalet
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > El 23/10/19 22:05, "Politicas en nombre de Nicolas Antoniello" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de nantoniello at gmail.com> escribió:
>> >
>> > Hola Jordi y todos,
>> >
>> > En mi opinión, luego del Foro Público, al menos a mi me quedó claro que
>> > estas propuestas que son un "ferrocarril" de cambios, movimientos y
>> > correcciones de texto son sumamente difíciles de tratar en conjunto por la
>> > mayoría de las personas (entre las que me incluyo).
>> > Creo que sería mejor dividirla en pequeños cambios e ir tratándolos de a
>> > poco... no hay apuro ni urgencia por realizar estos cambios pues entiendo
>> > que la gran mayoría son una puesta a punto del manual, que siempre es
>> > necesaria y bienvenida.
>> > Sugeriría dividir el "problema" en varios sub problemas, establecer una
>> > prioridad y comenzar a tratarlos de a poco y por separado en la lista...
>> > por ejemplo de a 3 por vez (en lugar de todo al mismo tiempo en una misma
>> > propuesta).
>> >
>> > Saludos,
>> > Nico
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > El mié., 23 de oct. de 2019 a la(s) 16:07, Ricardo Patara (
>> > patara at registro.br) escribió:
>> >
>> > > sigo en contra el texto propuesto.
>> > >
>> > > el texto incluye partes de otros párafos y hace más complicado un análisis
>> > > de
>> > > todos los impactos.
>> > >
>> > > especificamente acerca de esa parte de las verificaciones periodicas y
>> > > automatizadas. no veo justificativa.
>> > >
>> > > > Es deshonesto tener un texto que pretenda solo verificar en caso de
>> > > sospechas y sin embargo se verifica también periódicamente.
>> > >
>> > > no, no es así.
>> > > las verificaciones que se hace son de acuerdo a la política vigente.
>> > >
>> > > y incluso veo un problema en el texto, pues indica:
>> > >
>> > > "LACNIC verificará con la organización que recibió la asignación el
>> > > correcto uso del recurso "
>> > >
>> > > "correcto uso del recurso" es muy amplio y seguramente no es nada facil
>> > > asegurar
>> > > eso considerando todos los posibles usos correctos.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Ricardo
>> > >
>> > > > Si lo que crees es que no se debe verificar de forma automatizada,
>> > > ¿Quieres decir que prefieres que sólo se verifique cuando hay indicios, y
>> > > que LACNIC no pueda hacerlo de forma periódica, y por lo tanto, como no hay
>> > > indicios, solo se verificará si hay una denuncia de que algo está
>> > > ocurriendo?
>> > > >
>> > > > Eso implica cumplir peor con la labor de custodia y por lo tanto con el
>> > > adecuado cumplimiento de las políticas por todos, y por lo tanto, es
>> > > discriminatorio.
>> > > >
>> > > > Si cualquiera denuncia a su competidor, será verificado. Sino lo hace,
>> > > no será verificado.
>> > > >
>> > > > Obviamente, es mucho mejor que nadie tenga que denunciar o sospechar, y
>> > > que se haga de forma automatizada.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > El 10/10/19 17:25, "Politicas en nombre de Ricardo Patara" <
>> > > politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de patara at registro.br> escribió:
>> > > >
>> > > > No estoy de acuerdo.
>> > > >
>> > > > el texto actual indica:
>> > > >
>> > > > "LACNIC verificará con la organización que recibió la asignación el
>> > > > correcto uso del recurso cuando cuente con evidencia que permita
>> > > inferir
>> > > > que posiblemente los recursos de la asignación no están siendo
>> > > > utilizados o están siendo utilizados incorrectamente."
>> > > >
>> > > > no se trata de ser oscuro mucho menos "deshonesto", para nada!
>> > > >
>> > > > si hay indicios de que el uso es incorecto, se verifica.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > ricardo
>> > > >
>> > > > Em 10/10/2019 15:26, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas escreveu:
>> > > > > A mi me parece que es mas correcto ser honrados y transparentes y
>> > > que haya claridad en que eso lo puede hacer el staff, y dejar a su criterio
>> > > los detalles operacionales (como verificar y en que plazos/periodicidad),
>> > > pero no dejar el texto de tal manera que solo parezca que "si te pillan" te
>> > > van a verificar ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > La "oscuridad" no es un buen amigo en una política.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Saludos,
>> > > > > Jordi
>> > > > > @jordipalet
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > El 10/10/19 15:15, "Politicas en nombre de Ricardo Patara" <
>> > > politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de patara at registro.br> escribió:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hola,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Esto ha sido tenido en cuenta por el análisis de impacto
>> > > del staff. De hecho, la redacción del texto se ha dejado de tal manera que
>> > > no se especifican plazos, periodicidad, etc., para que el staff diseñe la
>> > > operativa que considere conveniente.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Creo que es muy razonable.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Por otro lado, cuando yo redacté ese texto, lo hice
>> > > habiendo tenido conversaciones con el staff al respecto.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Por si acaso me fallaba la memoria, he confirmado con el
>> > > staff esta misma mañana que así es, que ello realizan verificaciones, de
>> > > forma manual, en diversas situaciones, por ejemplo, cuando se piden nuevos
>> > > recursos, o cuando hay sospechas de algun incumplimiento.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > La ventaja de esta propuesta es que se podría automatizar,
>> > > de la forma que LACNIC considere apropiado.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Todos sabemos que automatizar algo tiene su coste inicial,
>> > > pero también es una inversión incluso a corto plazo, ya que evita mucho
>> > > trabajo manual de sucesivas verificaciones, y lo hace menos discriminatorio
>> > > (se verifica por igual a todos los miembros), y mas confiable.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Por otro lado, una de las misiones de LACNIC es
>> > > precisamente la adecuada custodia de los recursos y asegurarse, dentro de
>> > > lo razonable, del cumplimento de las políticas. Por eso creo que mejorar el
>> > > texto actual no hace nada contrario al espíritu, sino todo lo contrario.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > comprendo,
>> > > > > pero pienso que no es necesario agregar eso en el texto. que
>> > > sea a
>> > > > > criterio del rir/nir hacer dicha verificación cuando
>> > > necesario.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > de la forma como propuesto se crea una expectativa de que el
>> > > rir/nir sea
>> > > > > una "policía" de anuncios de bloques asignados.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > y puede ser cobrada cuando una determinada expectativa no se
>> > > cumpla como
>> > > > > esperado por una parte involucrada.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > no veo perjuicio en mantener esa parte como está actualmente.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > saludos
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Saludos,
>> > > > > > Jordi
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > El 8/10/19 22:20, "Politicas en nombre de Ricardo Patara" <
>> > > politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de patara at registro.br> escribió:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hola,
>> > > > > > En el foro comenté que no tenia una posición formada
>> > > acerca de esa
>> > > > > > propuesta pero al final dije que no estaba de acuerdo.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Y sigo sin estar de acuerdo y quisiera registrar en la
>> > > lista.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Con base en los comentarios me hechos en el foro me
>> > > preocupa un punto
>> > > > > > que todavía no lo había considerado.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > En el texto propuesto se indica:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Para la eficiente utilización de los recursos de la
>> > > región, LACNIC
>> > > > > > verificará con las organizaciones que reciben recursos,
>> > > el correcto uso
>> > > > > > de los mismos, de forma automatizada periódicamente
>> > > cuando sea posible y
>> > > > > > más exhaustivamente siempre que se cuente con
>> > > evidencias que permitan
>> > > > > > inferir que no están siendo correctamente utilizados."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > específicamente se indica que lacnic "verificará de
>> > > forma automatizada
>> > > > > > periódicamente"
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > eso no está en el proceso actual, así que es algo nuevo
>> > > y que seguro
>> > > > > > implica en impacto operacional.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > para comparación, el texto vigente indica:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "LACNIC verificará con la organización que recibió la
>> > > asignación el
>> > > > > > correcto uso del recurso cuando cuente con evidencia
>> > > que permita inferir
>> > > > > > que posiblemente los recursos de la asignación no están
>> > > siendo
>> > > > > > utilizados o están siendo utilizados incorrectamente."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > no veo justificativa para el cambio propuesto en esa
>> > > parte y por eso
>> > > > > > estoy contra la propuesta
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Saludos
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > Politicas mailing list
>> > > > > > Politicas at lacnic.net
>> > > > > > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > **********************************************
>> > > > > > IPv4 is over
>> > > > > > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> > > > > > http://www.theipv6company.com
>> > > > > > The IPv6 Company
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This electronic message contains information which may be
>> > > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the
>> > > exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
>> > > authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> > > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>> > > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>> > > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
>> > > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
>> > > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
>> > > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>> > > communication and delete it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > Politicas mailing list
>> > > > > > Politicas at lacnic.net
>> > > > > > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Ricardo Patara
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > Politicas mailing list
>> > > > > Politicas at lacnic.net
>> > > > > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > **********************************************
>> > > > > IPv4 is over
>> > > > > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> > > > > http://www.theipv6company.com
>> > > > > The IPv6 Company
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This electronic message contains information which may be
>> > > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the
>> > > exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
>> > > authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> > > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>> > > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>> > > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
>> > > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
>> > > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
>> > > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>> > > communication and delete it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > Politicas mailing list
>> > > > > Politicas at lacnic.net
>> > > > > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Ricardo Patara
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Politicas mailing list
>> > > > Politicas at lacnic.net
>> > > > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > **********************************************
>> > > > IPv4 is over
>> > > > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> > > > http://www.theipv6company.com
>> > > > The IPv6 Company
>> > > >
>> > > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> > > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
>> > > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
>> > > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> > > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>> > > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>> > > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
>> > > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
>> > > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
>> > > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>> > > communication and delete it.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > **********************************************
>> > IPv4 is over
>> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> > http://www.theipv6company.com
>> > The IPv6 Company
>> >
>> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Politicas mailing list
>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the Politicas
mailing list