[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2020-1 / Nova proposta LAC-2020-1 / New proposal LAC-2020-1

Thu Jan 30 10:13:46 GMT+3 2020

Olá,

Eu estou de acordo com a proposta, pois creio que é mais uma forma de
incentivar a implementação e uso do IPv6, ainda mais para as organizações
sedentas por mais e mais IPv4.
Nos dias de hoje, demonstrar o uso do IPv6 já deveria ser considerado uma
tarefa básica.

Com os comentários ajustados dos colegas Fernando e Jordi, entendo que já
tenha sido restrito o item 2.3.2.18.3 a organizações pertencentes a LACNIC,
assim como o caso onde o IPv6 é tecnicamente impossível de funcionar
através da justificativa do upstream e também sobre a validação periódica
do LACNIC.

Em ter., 28 de jan. de 2020 às 12:26, Fernando Frediani <
fhfrediani at gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hola Nicolas, gracias por tus comentarios.
>
> No sé si viniste a ver los detalles de la justificación de la propuesta,
> pero intentaré reproducirlos aquí para profundizar en las razones y
> motivaciones.
>
> En mi opinión, cuando un ISP que transfiere más y más bloques de IPv4
> sin tener IPv6 operativo está agravando aún más el problema de escasez,
> mucho más de lo que parece. Y este no es solo un problema privado que
> afecta solo a la organización misma, sino a todos los demás que *se
> interconectan* en ese ecosistema, después de todo en Internet nadie es
> un Sistema Autónomo solo.
> Por lo tanto, lo menos que puede hacer cualquiera que haya transferido
> más bloques de IPv4 es ser justo con los demás y demostrar que tienen
> IPv6 operativo en un intento por reducir este problema creciente.
>
> Todavía tenemos al menos 10 a 20 años de dependencia significativa de
> IPv4 en el futuro, y si acciones como esta no se llevan a cabo, muchos
> problemas y conflictos sucederán y empeorarán, y el lugar más probable
> en el que tendrán que ser tratados es en el RIR, más especialmente en
> esta lista de políticas. No hacer nada ahora dificultará mas la
> resolución de este problema y los conflictos que surjan en el futuro
> cercano.
>
> Además, esta propuesta responde a una llamada del Directorio de LACNIC
> para propuestas que promueven la implementación de IPv6.
>
> Finalmente, algo importante a tener en cuenta es que una de las
> prerrogativas de este foro es establecer las reglas mínimas necesarias
> para que los registros se realicen en whois y no hay ningún problema en
> agregar este requisito, ya que hay otros como enviar la documentación
> necesaria para probar necesidad, de lo contrario ni siquiera podríamos
> exigir que se haga este.
>
> Si este foro comprende que la transferencia de más y más IPv4 sin la
> contrapartida de tener IPv6 operativo perjudica a toda la comunidad, no
> hay impedimento para exigir este requisito para que se ajusten los
> registros whois.
>
> Un saludo
> Fernando Frediani
>
> On 28/01/2020 12:06, Nicolas Antoniello wrote:
> > Hola Fernando y lista,
> >
> > En principio no estoy de acuerdo con generar políticas que obliguen a
> IPv6
> > a cambio de poder transferir bloques IPv4.
> > Me parece que podríamos estar mezclando temas de una forma muy forzada.
> >
> > Se me ocurren varios casos en los que se podrían transferir bloques IPv4
> > sin que ello implique siquiera probar ningún tipo de operación
> particular.
> >
> > Repito que en principio no me parece razonable. La necesidad de
> despliegue
> > de IPv6 es ya un hecho... y el que no lo haga al único que perjudica es a
> > él mismo (sobre todo pequeños ISPs con necesidad o perspectiva de
> > crecimiento)... entonces para que nuevas obligaciones cruzadas??
> >
> > Otro aspecto no menor es que nuevamente creo que las políticas de
> > transferencias no son para “autorizar” las mismas sino para mantener
> > coherencia y vigencia en el registro de Lacnic... el hecho de poner
> > cualquier tipo de impedimento forzado no va a evitar la transferencia
> sino
> > que lo que seguramente suceda es que no quede registro de la misma en
> > Lacnic (que es justamente lo que no queremos que suceda no?).
> >
> > Saludo fraterno,
> > Nico
> >
> >
> >
> > El vie., 17 de ene. de 2020 a la(s) 13:16, <info-politicas at lacnic.net>
> > escribió:
> >
> >> [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 a info-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 contact info-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
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>