[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2020-1 / Nova proposta LAC-2020-1 / New proposal LAC-2020-1
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Mon Feb 3 14:50:26 GMT+3 2020
I do not think the proposal is a disease at all, and the proposal is not
an attack on the IPv4 marketplace.
While IPv4 brokers have done a lot in finding unused addresses that can be
put to work by those in need of more, eventually the fixed number of
addresses in IPv4 is going to make that job harder and harder as time goes
on. Eventually these brokers will manage to press into service every
unused IPv4 address. At that point, the only answer for continued
expansion of that IPv4 marketplace would be a large bidding war for every
IPv4 address that may adversely affect LACNIC, a region that may end up at
the short end of that bidding war, like they did in the overall share of
addresses provided to LACNIC compared to the remaining RIR's
If one wants to grow the Internet beyond the 4.3B limit of the IPv4
Internet, there is currently only one worldwide standard to do that. It
is IPv6. While CGnat, NAT, CIDR and other such tech has extended IPv4
use, there are limits. Even the 10.0.0.0/8 space is not enough for some
operators, who have been known to camp unto US Military space that is not
being currently routed on the Internet.
While all these measures extend the ability to continue to expand networks
using IPv4, many others including those responsible for large amounts of
the current traffic on the internet can see the future, and have been
placing IPv6 on their network for some time. In fact, many only have IPv4
on the edges, choosing to completely develop their internal structure with
IPv6, knowing that at some point in the future, that protocol will become
the main protocol on the internet.
Others pretend that IPv6 is just a phase, and continue to operate using
just IPv4.
The proposal here is to insist that anyone who is expanding their IPv4
holdings in LACNIC have in place an operational IPv6 network. The proposal
is limited solely to those who expand their IPv4 holdings. This proposal
does not require ANYONE who is not expanding their holdings to do anything
whatsoever in regard to IPv6.
Those networks that are expanding their IPv4 holdings are doing so because
of their growth. Because of their growth, I believe it is reasonable to
require those who are increasing their IPv4 holdings to be required to
join the future of the internet as a price of doing so. That future is
IPv6.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thanks for your reply and for writing in English . ?
> I will reply inline.
>
>
> Hi,
> (in english this time)
>
>>> Nobody is acquiring much IPv4
>>> via transfer in LACNIC, but the proponents would indicate that without
>>> adding an additional burden, some entities would acquire "more and
>>> more" IPv4 without deploying IPv6.
>
>> It depends on how one sees the question: If it was a disease LACNIC would be in the best position... :-))
>
> Mike- This is my point exactly. If you want to treat the IPv4 market like a disease, LACNIC is the best doctor!
> If you want to treat the IPv4 market as the most rational way to distribute scarce resources, however, this proposal is not good.
>
>
>
>
>>> There is something wrong with a group of number stewards aggrandizing
>> other roles for themselves by leveraging their legitimate number
>> registration role. So we have the right to register numbers, why not
>> use that to demand things from those over whom we have some power? Why
>> not mandate any IPv4 market participant must have a diverse workforce or
>> boardroom? Why not mandate that they should only run hardware newer than
>> five years old? Why not mandate anything we think is a good thing?
>
>> Because none of that is central to the LACNIC's community, i suspect.
> But what about IPv6?
>
> Mike - Do you not think increasing the number of female/minority participants in this community to be central!?
> By the way, who defines "central" in terms of limiting the appetites of stewards for more power? The center of our role is accurate registration, not picking protocol winners and losers.
>
>>> Our primary role is to keep an accurate Whois database.
>
>> All the "mickey mouses" and "john does" are now smiling...
>
> Mike - I don't understand what this means? That Whois is corrupt already, so who cares?
>
>
>>> If you want un-recorded transfers, you are providing additional
>>> incentive with this policy.
>
>> Oh...... let's not wave around the big bad bogeyman...
>
> Mike- Okay, let's ignore it and see how that impacts our primary responsibility of accurate registration.
>
>>> The market is adaptable and will provide a workaround, like
>> out-of-region registrations and leasing, neither of which this
>> community has much control over.
>
>> A sale is a sale, a lease is a lease. Two different things.
> I just read this paragraph as "let there be no rules, because they will be
> circumvented". I don't agree with that approach. Rules are needed.
>
> Mike - If an entity needs to use IPv4, a sale or a lease provides that to the entity. If a sale is more difficult, a lease becomes more attractive. Why not use the rules at RIPE? Are other rules really "needed"? Because RIPE doesn't have this rule, and they don’t even have a needs test at all. So how do you define "needed"?
>
>
>>> Should this proposal pass, it will begin a cat-and-mouse game with
>> network providers offering a cheap IPv6-announcement service to jump
>> through this hoop, and LACNIC staff trying to move the hoop and make it
>> smaller.
>
>> You are implying everyone will cheat the rule. I prefer to believe that
> will not be the case within this community.
>
> Mike - With your high regard for the community, maybe we should just make this voluntary and not a requirement?
>
>
>>> Pointless in terms of moving the needle on IPv6, which will only
>> respond to more rational inputs.
>> To conclude, even without this in place, the amount of transfers is (very)
> small. I don't believe they will tend to zero because of this new
> requirement. But only time will tell.
>
> Mike- Said another way " Transfers are sickly, let's make them harder instead of easier."
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sería bueno saber cuántas organizaciones estaban en el extremo receptor de esas 77 transferencias.
>>
>> Entonces, sería bueno comprobar cuántos de ellos NO están haciendo ningún IPv6.
>>
>> No entiendo este posible nuevo requisito como una carga.
>>
>> Por lo tanto deseo expresar pleno apoyo para 2020-1!
>>
>> Saludos/Cumprimentos/Regards,
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, Mike Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jordi,
>>>
>>> I hope you are well.
>>>
>>> LACNIC has only had 77 successful transfers in its history.
>>> Take a moment to think about that.
>>> In the same time period ARIN and RIPE did over 20,000.
>>> And you want to impose more burdens?
>>>
>>> Opposed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of JORDI
>>> PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 9:50 AM
>>> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
>>> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>>> Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2020-1 / Nova
>>> proposta LAC-2020-1 / New proposal LAC-2020-1
>>>
>>> Hola Fernando, Arturo,
>>>
>>> El 21/1/20 15:13, "Politicas en nombre de Fernando Frediani" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>
>>> Hola Arturo
>>>
>>> Estoy convencido de que los requisitos de transferencia NO los hacen
>>> incompatibles. Cada RIR puede tener sus requisitos de transferencia. Es
>>> precisamente por esta razón que el texto dice en 2.3.2.18.2: "If the
>>> receiving organization is part of another region, it will be subject to
>>> the criteria, verifications and requirements of the corresponding RIR.".
>>> De lo contrario, esto texto no sería necesario y todas las políticas y
>>> requisitos en los 5 RIR tendrían que ser idénticas.
>>>
>>> Aunque Fernando puede tener razón, creo que se presta a interpretación, ya que el punto 2.3.2.18.2 se refiere a la justificación de la necesidad, o al menos se lee como tal. Por ese motivo, en la propuesta de transferencias redactamos el punto 2.3.2.18.10. como "Legacy resources transferred into the LACNIC region will no longer be considered legacy resources.".
>>>
>>> Creo que es mejor evitar la duda o posibilidades de interpretación para no perder la reciprocidad con ARIN (creo que sería el único caso, salvo que la propuesta de AFRINIC que se apruebe en el futuro, haga algo parecido a lo que hace ARIN).
>>>
>>> Es diferente, por ejemplo, de otras propuestas que solo preveían
>>> transferencias unidireccionales, estos sí no tendrían reciprocidad. Esta
>>> continúa permitiendo transferencias en ambas direcciones y no cambia
>>> nada en los requisitos de organizaciones en otros RIR.
>>>
>>> No solo, ARIN según me consta, pide que no haya otros aspectos que les limiten a ellos. Si se interpreta (aunque no sea tu intención, que creo que no lo es), que en transferencias de LACNIC a ARIN también el (receptor) tiene que justificar que tiene IPv6 operativo, no sería reciproco y además es absurdo que una política de LACNIC pretenda imponer reglas en otra región.
>>>
>>> Creo que está claro que esta propuesta solo agrega un requisito para las
>>> transferencias IPv4 Intra o Inter RIR de las organizaciones *receptoras
>>> dentro de LACNIC*, sin embargo, si es necesario, podemos ajustar el
>>> texto de la propuesta a: "2.3.2.18.3 Receiving organization in LACNIC
>>> must have LACNIC allocated/assigned IPv6 space and be able to prove it
>>> is being used by providing LACNIC documented network deployment details
>>> to prove IPv6 is operational in significant parts of the network."
>>>
>>> Perfecto! Así no hay dudas!
>>>
>>> Observe también que la demostración de tener IPv6 operativo no presupone
>>> simplemente subir una red IPv6 pequeña y poder comunicarse a través de
>>> ella. Como dice el texto, la organización debe demostrar detalles de la
>>> implementación y demostrar que IPv6 está operativo *en partes
>>> significativas* de la red. Además, el staff de LACNIC definirá los
>>> criterios mínimos para llevar a cabo estos controles. Por lo tanto, de
>>> ninguna manera es un proceso trivial.
>>>
>>> Exacto y de acuerdo con ello! Evitamos entrar en aspectos operacionales de la implementación de la propuesta, si lo podemos evitar.
>>>
>>> Siempre se ha hecho un proceso muy similar y sigue siendo para IPv4.
>>> Quien recibe IPv4 por primera vez o quien transfiere IPv4 ya tiene que
>>> demostrar, mediante documentación y otros métodos, que tienen la
>>> necesidad de ese espacio. No hay mucha diferencia en hacer lo mismo para
>>> IPv6.
>>>
>>> Con respecto al comentario de añadir operaciones a LACNIC en tener que
>>> verificar que IPv6 continúa funcionando *no es el objeto de esta
>>> propuesta*, por lo que no se aplica.
>>>
>>> Así es, eso ya lo hace la propuesta que permite recibir IPv6. Dice bien claro que es para usarlo, no para acumularlo sin mas.
>>>
>>> La decisión de tener operacional o no IPv6 sigue siendo una decisión del
>>> ISP. Esta propuesta no obliga a ninguna organización a implementar el
>>> IPv6 tan pronto como se ratifique esta propuesta. Si lo desea, puede
>>> continuar otros 20 años sin IPv6.
>>>
>>> Estaría loco, pero es correcto.
>>>
>>> Lo único que hace es establecer una condición que, en el caso de que la
>>> organización desee transferir más y más bloques de IPv4, debe demostrar
>>> tener IPv6 operativo como una forma de compromiso con los demás porque
>>> no es solo algo privado y eso afecta solo a esa organización, sino que
>>> todos los demás que se interconectan con él en este ecosistema.
>>> LACNIC no perseguirá a nadie porque esta propuesta no dice que debería
>>> ir de una organización a otra y les ordena implementar IPv6 en ningún
>>> momento.
>>>
>>> Y me parece lo lógico. Si pides IPv6 es para utilizarlo, sino no lo pidas. Si pides IPv4 es para utilizarlo, sino no lo pidas. Ahora bien, como no hay mas IPv4, no pretendas recibir mas, aunque sea con transferencias, si no haces un esfuerzo con IPv6, porque entonces, estas evitando que otros que, si que lo harán, puedan obtener IPv4.
>>>
>>> Alguien podría aprovecharse de las transferencias para acumular IPv4, quizás haciendo trampas en las solicitudes, para luego alquilarlo o volver a transferirlo, y con esta propuesta evitamos ese abuso.
>>>
>>> Saludos
>>> Fernando Frediani
>>>
>>> On 21/01/2020 06:32, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>> > En contra de la politica.
>>> >
>>> > - No creo que sea necesaria
>>> > - Dado que añade requisitos para una transferencia puede hacer las
>>> > politicas de transferencias inter-RIR incompatibles (o mas incompatibles)
>>> > con otros RIRs
>>> > - No creo que ayude a acelerar la implementacion de IPv6 ya que es trivial
>>> > demostrar que se usa IPv6 sin en realidad tener una implementación.
>>> > - Añade operación a LACNIC en tener que verificar que IPv6 siga funcionando
>>> > en el ISP.
>>> > - Al dia de hoy con el despliegue que existe de IPv6, es en realidad una
>>> > decision del ISP de riesgo y negocio el seguir en IPv4 y no implementar
>>> > IPv6. Es decir, no es necesario que LACNIC persiga ISPs.
>>> >
>>> > Saludos
>>> > as
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:10 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas <
>>> > politicas at lacnic.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hola Fernando,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> El 20/1/20 22:56, "Politicas en nombre de Fernando Frediani" <
>>> >> politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hola Jordi
>>> >>
>>> >> Gracias por tus comentarios
>>> >> La exención para IPv6 fue colocada pensando en los pocos casos que
>>> >> ocurrirán en los que algunas upstreams 'retrasadas' aún no tienen
>>> >> soporte para IPv6 y esto no podría dañar a una organización que se
>>> >> encuentra en la situación de transferencia debido a una deficiencia de
>>> >> un tercero sobre el cual ella no tiene control.
>>> >> Sí, es cierto que esto podría tratarse de otras maneras, pero podría
>>> >> generar conflictos entre el cliente y el upstream y, a menudo, hay
>>> >> contratos vigentes que deben cumplirse (con o sin IPv6). La intención
>>> >> de
>>> >> la propuesta no es causar conflictos entre organizaciones, sino solo
>>> >> tener el compromiso de que aquellos que están transfiriendo cada vez
>>> >> más
>>> >> IPv4 tendrán el IPv6 asignado por LACNIC operativo en sus
>>> >> organizaciones.
>>> >> Creo que en la práctica habrá muy pocos casos, así que considero justo
>>> >> que en tales casos se pueda renunciar a la obligación.
>>> >>
>>> >> Si dejas abierta la puerta a la excepción, bajo mi punto de vista, surgen
>>> >> mas y mas casos. No quería mencionarlo explícitamente, por aquello de no
>>> >> hacer publicidad a nadie, pero dado que al menos hay un proveedor HE, que
>>> >> proporciona IPv6 con túneles y con BGP, sin cargo, creo que la excepción es
>>> >> innecesaria.
>>> >>
>>> >> También tenga en cuenta que las organizaciones que declaran por
>>> >> escrito
>>> >> que no tienen IPv6 si algún día les toca transferir direcciones IPv4,
>>> >> pueden ser impedidas debido a este hecho hasta que demuestren que IPv6
>>> >> ya está operativo.
>>> >>
>>> >> No entendí esto. Te refieres como donantes o como receptores? Entiendo que
>>> >> el texto solo se refiere a receptores, pero insisto en que, si el problema
>>> >> es el upstream provider, ese problema no existe en realidad.
>>> >>
>>> >> Y que dependerá del staff de LACNIC definir los requisitos mínimos,
>>> >> que
>>> >> pueden o no ser el caso para escenarios de multihoming.
>>> >>
>>> >> Creo que no debemos mezclar si hay o no multihoming. Si hay un solo
>>> >> proveedor de IPv6, a mi me parece suficiente, haya o no haya varios
>>> >> proveedores de IPv4.
>>> >>
>>> >> Con respecto a la pregunta sobre afectar solo a los ISP y no a los
>>> >> usuarios finales, no creo que sea así porque esta parte del manual se
>>> >> aplica a cualquier organización que desee transferir direcciones IPv4.
>>> >> Dice el texto de la sección 2.3.2.18: "*Se permitirán transferencias
>>> >> de
>>> >> direcciones IPv4 entre LIRs y/o usuarios finales...*". Con respecto a
>>> >> la
>>> >> falta de la palabra "assigned", esto se puede dejar mas claro en una
>>> >> nueva version. Gracias.
>>> >>
>>> >> Si mejor, porque en caso contrario puede parecer una contradicción, aunque
>>> >> me queda claro que tu intención es que afecte a ambos.
>>> >>
>>> >> Con respecto a las verificaciones periódicas, no sé si entendí
>>> >> correctamente, pero veo que la verificación debe hacerse en el momento
>>> >> de la justificación y una vez aprobada, no se realizarán futuras
>>> >> verificaciones. Como analogía, tomemos como ejemplo la validación del
>>> >> contacto de abuso, que fue una discusión muy extensa sobre cómo se
>>> >> podría hacer automatizado. Una validación como la que usted sugiere
>>> >> sería aún más compleja y tal vez no sea muy efectiva, quizás poniendo
>>> >> una carga de trabajo muy grande en el equipo de LACNIC.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yo no lo veo así. El texto que propones no busca "promesas de que se va a
>>> >> utilizar IPv6", sino que ya esta está usando. Por lo tanto, si esta
>>> >> propuesta alcanza consenso y LACNIC ha puesto en marcha (al implementar
>>> >> LAC-2019-9), las verificaciones periódicas, ya sabe si ese ISP/usuario esta
>>> >> usando realmente IPv6 y por lo tanto no hace falta (en principio) mirar
>>> >> documentación adicional (aunque la puede pedir). Es más, se puede ver el
>>> >> historial de verificaciones periódicas anteriores. Si el proveedor lo acaba
>>> >> de poner en marcha, vasca con que LACNIC haga "click" en la verificación
>>> >> automática para que se compruebe cual es el estado en ese momento.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sin embargo, veo que no es algo totalmente irracional y quién sabe en
>>> >> el
>>> >> futuro que podría ser algo para evaluar y el resultado de una
>>> >> propuesta
>>> >> futura cuando, si llega a un consenso, está entrando en vigor.
>>> >>
>>> >> Saludos cordiales.
>>> >> Fernando Frediani
>>> >>
>>> >> On 19/01/2020 19:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas wrote:
>>> >> > Hola Fernando,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Mil gracias por esta propuesta. Me parece muy importante y necesaria.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Mis comentarios podrían variar en función de la traducción al
>>> >> Castellano, tal y como comenté en otra propuesta anterior, ya que solo el
>>> >> texto en Castellano es el oficial para el manual de políticas, pero supongo
>>> >> que sería fácil resolverlo (si fuera el caso) cuando tengamos la traducción.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Aunque no es texto de la política (y por lo tanto no podría ser
>>> >> hecho efectivo), no estoy de acuerdo con "In the case the receiver provides
>>> >> a written statement from its upstream that IPv6 connectivity is
>>> >> unavailable, the IPv6 requirement may be waived.".
>>> >> >
>>> >> > NO hay excusas, bajo mi punto de vista, para tener un upstream
>>> >> provider que tenga soporte de IPv6, ya que, si es preciso, se puede usar un
>>> >> túnel, incluso con soporte BGP. Yo he trabajado en varios casos en los que
>>> >> esto ocurría y siempre lo hemos podido resolver, pues los "upstream"
>>> >> providers del uptream provider, lo pueden proporcionar, además que hay
>>> >> upstream providers que lo ofrecen incluso sin coste.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Para el texto de la propuesta, he hecho un diff-online que me ha
>>> >> ayudado a revisar las diferencias y supongo que puede ser útil para otros:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > https://www.diffchecker.com/MaapyXNc
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Creo que hay algo que debemos considerar, y es que tal y como esta
>>> >> redactada la propuesta solo afectaría a los ISPs (allocations), y no a los
>>> >> end-users (assignments). Creo que esto no es correcto y debería ser igual
>>> >> para ambos.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Por lo tanto, sugiero este cambio, que también tiene en cuenta mi
>>> >> comentario anterior de los upstream providers así como que en lugar de
>>> >> documentación, creo que el staff puede usar la recién aprobado política
>>> >> LAC-2019-9 para hacer esas verificaciones de forma automatizada y por tanto
>>> >> evitar la necesidad de generar documentación adicional o de revisarla, a
>>> >> ambas partes, en los casos en los que sea obvio que hay despliegue real de
>>> >> IPv6.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 2.3.2.18.3 Receiving organization must have LACNIC
>>> >> allocated/assigned IPv6 space and be able to prove it is being used by
>>> >> providing LACNIC documented network deployment details to prove IPv6 is
>>> >> operational in significant parts of the network.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regular LACNIC periodical verification (7.1) will be used to assess
>>> >> that IPv6 is operational, and if necessary, the staff may require further
>>> >> information to validate this requirement.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Saludos,
>>> >> > Jordi
>>> >> > @jordipalet
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > El 17/1/20 17:47, "Politicas en nombre de Fernando Frediani"<
>>> >> politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Hola a todos.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Dos aclaraciones:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - El cambio principal en el texto propuesto se encuentra en el
>>> >> ítem
>>> >> > 2.3.2.18.3. Todos los demás elementos siguientes permanecen sin
>>> >> cambios
>>> >> > y solo se vuelven a numerar al número siguiente .
>>> >> > - La forma en que se analizará esto no es diferente de lo que
>>> >> se ha
>>> >> > hecho para la justificativas de asignaciones de IPv4 a lo largo
>>> >> de los
>>> >> > años. El staff de RIR/NIR de la misma manera revisará las
>>> >> > justificaciones y también establecerá los criterios mínimos
>>> >> para esto.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Saludos cordiales
>>> >> > Fernando Frediani
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 17/01/2020 13:15,info-politicas at lacnic.net wrote:
>>> >> > > [Português abaixo]
>>> >> > > [English below]
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Estimados suscriptores de la Lista de Políticas de LACNIC,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Se recibió una nueva propuesta de Política, se le asignó el
>>> >> id LAC-2020-1.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Título: Add IPv6 operational as a requirement for IPv4
>>> >> transfers
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Resumen: On 15th February 2017 LACNIC started IPv4 Exhaustion
>>> >> Phase 3 meaning only new entrants can receive up to a single /22 of IPv4
>>> >> space. Since then the amount of IPv4 Transfers between organizations has
>>> >> increased reasonably as shown by the official LACNIC reports. With the
>>> >> implementation of LAC-2019-1 and possibility of Inter-RIR transfers these
>>> >> numbers have the potential to grow substantially.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > The objective of this proposal is to add as a requirement for
>>> >> organizations in process of receiving transferred IPv4 space under 2.3.2.18
>>> >> to show they have an IPv6 allocation by LACNIC operational on their
>>> >> networks. Such organization must be able to prove this IPv6 space is being
>>> >> used by providing LACNIC the documented network deployment details to prove
>>> >> IPv6 is operational in significant parts of the network.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On 28th November 2019 LACNIC Board issued a statement (
>>> >> https://www.lacnic.net/4283/2/lacnic/lacnic-board-calls-on-the-community-to-promote-ipv6-deployment)
>>> >> reinforcing the issue about IPv4 exhaustion, mentioning IPv4 address space
>>> >> will be exhausted by mid-2020 and calling the community to promote IPv6
>>> >> deployment.
>>> >> > > In its statement LACNIC Board ?invite the community to work
>>> >> on promoting the development of policies that will accelerate the effective
>>> >> deployment of IPv6 above other policies that may be discussed at a later
>>> >> date.?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > In the case the receiver provides a written statement from
>>> >> its upstream that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6 requirement
>>> >> may be waived.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Para ver el detalle ingrese en:
>>> >> > >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2020-1
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Los comentarios y los puntos de vista aportados por la
>>> >> comunidad son vitales para el correcto desarrollo del proceso de la
>>> >> propuestas
>>> >> > > - ¿Apoya usted o se opone a esta propuesta?
>>> >> > > - ¿Esta propuesta resolvería un problema que usted está
>>> >> experimentando?- ¿Ve alguna desventaja en esta propuesta?
>>> >> > > - ¿Qué cambios podrían hacerse a esta propuesta para que sea
>>> >> más eficaz?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Por más información contacte ainfo-politicas at lacnic.net
>>> >> > > Saludos cordiales,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Prezados assinantes da lista de políticas de LACNIC,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Foi recebida uma nova proposta de Política, foi atribuído o
>>> >> id LAC-2020-1.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Título: Add IPv6 operational as a requirement for IPv4
>>> >> transfers
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Resumo: On 15th February 2017 LACNIC started IPv4 Exhaustion
>>> >> Phase 3 meaning only new entrants can receive up to a single /22 of IPv4
>>> >> space. Since then the amount of IPv4 Transfers between organizations has
>>> >> increased reasonably as shown by the official LACNIC reports. With the
>>> >> implementation of LAC-2019-1 and possibility of Inter-RIR transfers these
>>> >> numbers have the potential to grow substantially.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > The objective of this proposal is to add as a requirement for
>>> >> organizations in process of receiving transferred IPv4 space under 2.3.2.18
>>> >> to show they have an IPv6 allocation by LACNIC operational on their
>>> >> networks. Such organization must be able to prove this IPv6 space is being
>>> >> used by providing LACNIC the documented network deployment details to prove
>>> >> IPv6 is operational in significant parts of the network.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On 28th November 2019 LACNIC Board issued a statement (
>>> >> https://www.lacnic.net/4283/2/lacnic/lacnic-board-calls-on-the-community-to-promote-ipv6-deployment)
>>> >> reinforcing the issue about IPv4 exhaustion, mentioning IPv4 address space
>>> >> will be exhausted by mid-2020 and calling the community to promote IPv6
>>> >> deployment.
>>> >> > > In its statement LACNIC Board ?invite the community to work
>>> >> on promoting the development of policies that will accelerate the effective
>>> >> deployment of IPv6 above other policies that may be discussed at a later
>>> >> date.?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > In the case the receiver provides a written statement from
>>> >> its upstream that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6 requirement
>>> >> may be waived.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Para ver o detalhe acesse:
>>> >> > >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2020-1
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Os comentários e os pontos de vista aportados pela
>>> >> comunidade são vitais para o bom desenvolvimento do processo das propostas
>>> >> > > - ¿Você é a favor ou contra desta proposta?
>>> >> > > - ¿Esta proposta iria resolver um problema que você está
>>> >> experimentando?- ¿Vê alguma alguma desvantagem nesta proposta?
>>> >> > > - ¿Que mudanças poderiam ser feitas à proposta para que seja
>>> >> mais eficaz?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Por mais informações entre em contato conosco através do
>>> >> seguinte e-mail:info-politicas at lacnic.net
>>> >> > > Atenciosamente,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Dear LACNIC Policy List subscribers,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the
>>> >> following ID: LAC-2020-1.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Title: Add IPv6 operational as a requirement for IPv4
>>> >> transfers
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Summary: On 15th February 2017 LACNIC started IPv4 Exhaustion
>>> >> Phase 3 meaning only new entrants can receive up to a single /22 of IPv4
>>> >> space. Since then the amount of IPv4 Transfers between organizations has
>>> >> increased reasonably as shown by the official LACNIC reports. With the
>>> >> implementation of LAC-2019-1 and possibility of Inter-RIR transfers these
>>> >> numbers have the potential to grow substantially.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > The objective of this proposal is to add as a requirement for
>>> >> organizations in process of receiving transferred IPv4 space under 2.3.2.18
>>> >> to show they have an IPv6 allocation by LACNIC operational on their
>>> >> networks. Such organization must be able to prove this IPv6 space is being
>>> >> used by providing LACNIC the documented network deployment details to prove
>>> >> IPv6 is operational in significant parts of the network.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On 28th November 2019 LACNIC Board issued a statement (
>>> >> https://www.lacnic.net/4283/2/lacnic/lacnic-board-calls-on-the-community-to-promote-ipv6-deployment)
>>> >> reinforcing the issue about IPv4 exhaustion, mentioning IPv4 address space
>>> >> will be exhausted by mid-2020 and calling the community to promote IPv6
>>> >> deployment.
>>> >> > > In its statement LACNIC Board ?invite the community to work
>>> >> on promoting the development of policies that will accelerate the effective
>>> >> deployment of IPv6 above other policies that may be discussed at a later
>>> >> date.?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > In the case the receiver provides a written statement from
>>> >> its upstream that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6 requirement
>>> >> may be waived.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > To read the proposal, please go to
>>> >> > >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2020-1
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > The community's comments and opinions are essential to the
>>> >> proper functioning of the policy development process.
>>> >> > > - Do you support this policy or are you against it?
>>> >> > > - Would this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing?-
>>> >> Do you think this proposal has any drawbacks?
>>> >> > > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>>> >> effective?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > For further information, please
>>> >> contactinfo-politicas at lacnic.net
>>> >> > > Kind regards,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > --LACNIC - Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses
>>> >> Registry
>>> >> > > Rambla Rep. de México 6125, CP 11400
>>> >> > > Montevideo-Uruguay
>>> >> > > Phone number: +598 2604 22 22
>>> >> > >www.lacnic.net
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > > 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> **********************************************
>>> >> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>
More information about the Politicas
mailing list