[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2020-1 - Versión 4

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Wed Apr 7 00:27:11 -03 2021


Hello

With regards the numbers although they may not be higher numbers there 
is indeed a reasonable increase from 2017 until now, and add to that the 
Inter-RIR Policy only started recently so that has the potential to 
increase even more. There is nothing outside of what the resume intends 
to put or even wrong.

However let's focus on the main merit of the proposal which is to make 
the scenario fairer for all in the sense that every time an organization 
chooses to transfer more IPv4 *without being able to show commitment to 
IPv6* it is worsting a lot the problem to all others. This is one of the 
main things this proposal brings. Not only but specially new entrants 
which will find themselves even more in trouble to be able to exist in 
the internet if this continues to be like it is now. Building policies 
is not only worrying about existent organizations but also the new ones.

I don't see a higher number of IPv4 transfer as something good, but 
instead as something bad and concerning. The more transfers more it 
means there is little or no commitment to IPv6 and it is very reasonable 
to require, at least from those who are willing to transfer IPv4, to 
show their commitment to IPv6 and make sure they (at least) are not 
helping to worse the problem for *all others*.
Look, it is not something that makes a transfer any near impossible or 
even a significant barrier. It is actually a *small requirement* and if 
the organization is unable to prove that than why would it be 
interesting to all others that be being harmed by yet another transfer 
without any commitment ? If the organization is on its feet with IPv6 
than it will be free to progress with the necessary transfer 
immediatlly. At least it makes it fair for the impacted community and 
the transfer policy keep making sense for all, not only for the needed 
organization.

I don't agree with IPv6 penetration statement.  Regions engage in more 
transfers due to demand. If IPv6 is enough penetrated that certainly 
mean less need for Public IPv4 for CGNAT usage for example as they will 
be less necessary because it is then possible to make more with less IPv4.

Fernando

On 06/04/2021 16:55, Mike Burns wrote:
> "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"
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
> LACNIC transfers by year (rough count):
> 2017          12
> 2018          23
> 2019          53
> 2020          58
> 2021Q1     13, or 52 annualized.
> These are mostly small blocks. Nothing larger than a /18 in more than four years!
>
> The numbers do not bear out the language in the summary statement. In fact there *is* a problem with LACNIC IPv4 transfers-there are far too few 
of them.  Instead of erecting further barriers to IPv4 transfers, the community should address the dramatic lack of LACNIC transfers compared to the other trading registries. What LACNIC did in 5 years, RIPE does in a month. Every month. The LACNIC market is no longer new, and has had time to
> mature. And yet it has not, and rather than address that problem[1], this
> proposal seeks to further stifle the market.
>
> Look again at those numbers. Do they seem like they could be slowing IPv6
> progress in the region? A few hundred transfers in five years? That's the
> whole point of this proposal, that somehow adding further requirements to
> the limping IPv4 market will magically increase IPv6 in the region. The 
data does not support the problem stated nor the solution expected.
>
> The community passed a transfer policy because it realized transfers were
> the best way forward in a near- and post-exhaust world.  The failure of 
LACNIC's transfer policy to result in a reasonable number of transfers is 
to nobody's benefit. It stifles organic growth of the Internet, it leads to more CGNAT and less efficient use as blocks remain on the shelf.  It leads to more opaque Whois information through leasing and non-policy transfers, and it generally slows progress and tends to ossify the region, which to my mind is the opposite of what is required to transition to IPv6.
> Regions with better IPv6 penetration engage in many more transfers, how 
does the logic of this proposal answer that?
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
> [1]  The language in LACNIC's RSA giving LACNIC the right to revoke for 
lack of utilization was removed from every other RIR's RSA when they began
> allowing IPv4 to be sold, because it is plainly incompatible with a market. To relieve sellers of their fear of LACNIC, this language must be removed otherwise every potential seller must reveal to LACNIC that they are not using addresses, and thus they are contractually forfeitable.  Would you sell your most valuable asset if it meant exposing it to the entity 
which has the legal right to take it back if you aren't using it?  What is
> the point of retaining that language at LACNIC and not ARIN, RIPE, or APNIC?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Politicas<politicas-bounces at lacnic.net>  On Behalf
> Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 2:48 PM
> 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 versión de la propuesta LAC-2020-1 - Versión 4
>
> Hola a todos,
>
> Una vez mas, de acuerdo con esta propuesta.
>
> Creo que es una iniciativa muy buena e importante, y que espero que pronto llegue al resto de los RIRs.
>
> Cada vez está mas cerca el momento en que sea imprescindible proteger a los ciudadanos, y por tanto a la comunidad y sus recursos, y desde las políticas lo podemos hacer. No sería bueno, lo que sin duda 
llegará si no actuamos desde las políticas, que sea por intervención de gobiernos.
>
> Esta propuesta va en el camino adecuado. Ya lo estaba la versión anterior, y creo que arbitrariamente se determinó que no había alcanzado consenso sin exponer con claridad objeciones válidas.
>
> Mas pronto que tarde, tenemos que actuar y evitar que se usen los recursos IPv4, y concretamente las transferencias, para evitar el despliegue de IPv6 y prolongar de forma innecesaria y dañina la vida de IPv4. Acaso preferimos, como digo, que sean los gobiernos los que lo impongan, sin conocimiento técnicos como a menudo hacen, sin plazos adecuados, etc.?
>   
> Saludos,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>   
>   
>
> El 31/3/21 16:48, "Politicas en nombre de Fernando Frediani"<politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de fhfrediani at gmail.com>  escribió:
>
>      Hola a todos
>
>      Tras la discusión de esta nueva versión de esta propuesta y
> con
>      el fin
>      de llegar a un consenso, a continuación aclaro algunos puntos 
sobre la
>      nueva versión y también el último mensaje de los Moderadores sobre las
>      razones por las que esta propuesta no llegó a un consenso.
>
>      - Repito que esta propuesta NO obliga automáticamente a ninguna
>      organización a desplegar IPv6 si no lo desean, solo y solo si 
necesitan
>      transferir bloques de IPv4
>
>      - Sin embargo, si existe interés en transferir bloques IPv4 en el
>      sistema de registro de LACNIC, este ya no es un tema que sea solo
>      interno de la organización, sino que afecta a todas las demás
>      organizaciones que forman parte del ecosistema de LACNIC donde se deben
>      desarrollar políticas con miras al interés y beneficio de la mayoría, no
>      solo de unos pocos.
>
>      - La mayoría de los interesados ​​no pueden seguir indiferentes a algo
>      que afecta y agrava aún más el problema de escasez de direcciones IPv4,
>      por lo que la *intención y espíritu* de esta propuesta sigue siendo
>      tener un requisito obligatorio para demostrar que IPv6 esta operativo
>
>      para realizar transferencias IPv4. Este es un requisito muy razonable
>
>      para 2021 y, si no se controla, continuará agravando el problema
> para la
>      mayoría de las organizaciones que se conectan o desean ser parte
> del
>
>      ecosistema de Internet.
>
>      - Respecto al análisis de impacto comentar que este requisito 
podría ser
>      un obstáculo para algunas organizaciones, la afirmación es correcta y no
>      hay nada de malo en querer agregar esta restricción dado el contexto
>
>      actual. Algunos "obstáculos" son totalmente razonables para que haya
>
>      equilibrio y equidad entre todas las organizaciones. ¿No es razonable
>      pedirle a cualquier organización que demuestre la necesidad de utilizar
>      bloques IPv4? ¿Por qué no le pediría también que demuestre su compromiso
>      con todos los demás con IPv6 operativo cuando es necesario transferir
>      más bloques de IPv4?
>
>      - El argumento de que las organizaciones pueden realizar transferencias
>      fuera del sistema de registro de LACNIC se utiliza con bastante
>      frecuencia como motivo para oponerse a una propuesta, pero se mencionó
>
>      varias veces durante la discusión que no se puede seguir siendo un
>      motivo tan general para oponerse a ella porque el registro ha sus
>      políticas vigentes, contratos previamente aceptados y reconocidos en
>      el
>      ordenamiento jurídico y sanciones para quienes incumplan. Ninguna
>      propuesta de política puede dejar de seguir adelante en función
>      de la
>      posibilidad de que se incumpla. Existen mecanismos de corrección
> para
>      esto. Lo más importante a tener en cuenta es su necesidad.
>
>      - Ninguna parte del PDP obliga a los autores a desarrollar políticas
>      con
>      la intención de educar al usuario (organización), por lo 
que no
>      creo que
>      este pueda ser un argumento para ser utilizado como objeción a una
>      propuesta. Propuesta cuando sea necesario, no depende de las acciones
>
>      contenidas o no en el sentido de educación del usuario. Si hay una
>      necesidad y hay un consenso, la parte de educación se deja a otros
>      actores involucrados.
>      Creo que LACNIC y sus RIR ya están realizando un trabajo educativo sobre
>      la necesidad de implementar IPv6, lo cual es muy elogiado.
>      Entonces, entiendo que esta justificación parece más un deseo personal
>      de los moderadores.
>
>      - No es cierto que "/según LACNIC sería contraproducente 
para el
>      registro de transferencia IPv4/". En ninguna parte del análisis de
>      impacto se dice nada al respecto. Simplemente dice que puede significar
>      un obstáculo para algunas organizaciones, como se explicó 
anteriormente,
>      que *no hay problema en crear restricciones razonables* a las
>      justificaciones para el uso de recursos.
>
>      Respecto a los cambios en esta versión de la propuesta:
>
>      - El staff menciona que entendió que existe una inconsistencia entre
>      el
>      resumen y la redacción de la propuesta. Aclaro que puede deberse
> a algún
>      error en la traducción porque nunca hubo la intención de 
limitar las
>      transferencias a /22.
>      Solo existe el buen sentido de eliminar este requisito solo para una
>      nueva organización que *aún no tiene bloques IPv4*  y quiere transferir
>      un bloque inicial hasta el límite de un /22para iniciar sus operaciones.
>      En el resumen de la propuesta se deja claro que la excepción de una
>      transferencia hasta a /22 es solo para el caso de *nuevos entrantes*
>      exactamente en línea con el agotamiento de la fase 3 de LACNIC. Además,
>      la mención del pool reservado en las condiciones 11.1 está 
directamente
>      relacionada solo con los nuevos participantes.
>      De todos modos, ajusté el texto para que quede aún más
> claro que solo
>      aplican aquellos que no tienen asignaciones de IPv4.
>
>      -En cuanto al término "significativas" mencionado, aclaro que 
como la
>      propuesta define que le corresponde al staff de LACNIC definir los
>      requisitos mínimos, no es la intención de este autor complicar demasiado
>      el texto de la propuesta, definiendo de forma detallada lo que es
>      significativo o no, sino al staff según el contexto que cambia con el
>      tiempo. Aclaro aquí que desde mi punto de vista en este contexto
>
>      "significativas" se relaciona con las partes principales de la red 
que
>      serán responsables de entregar conectividad IPv6 al usuario
>      final/downstream y no solo en equipos de red centrales que no tienen una
>      relación directa con la entrega de una conexión IPv6 a un usuario
>      final/downstream, de modo que el tráfico es de fin a fin hasta el
>      contenido disponible en IPv6.
>      Se agregó una aclaración en la parte de información 
adicional
>      relacionada con este asunto.
>
>      - Finalmente, se aclara que las modificaciones para esta versión
> no
>      alteran la reciprocidad mencionada en el punto 5 del análisis 
de
> impacto
>      anterior, refiriéndose a la reciprocidad ya confirmada con ARIN.
>
>      Saludos cordiales.
>      Fernando Frediani
>
>      On 31/03/2021 11:37,info-politicas at lacnic.net  wrote:
>      > [Português abaixo]
>      > [English below]
>      >
>      > Estimados suscriptores de la lista de políticas de LACNIC,
>      >
>      > La propuesta LAC-2020-1 ha pasado de la versión 3 a la versión 4
>      >
>      > Título: Agregar IPv6 operativo como requisito para las transferencias de IPv4
>      >
>      > 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/assignment by LACNIC or a provider 
and that is 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. In the case LACNIC is not able to meet a new entrant request for IPv4
>      space, or the organization does not hold any IPv4 space the IPv6 requirement may be waived for a transfer up to a /22.
>      >
>      > Para ver el detalle ingrese en:
>      >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2020-1/language/sp
>      >
>      > Los cambios respecto a la versión anterior se pueden visualizar aquí:
>      >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/diff2?id=LAC-2020-1&v=4&v2=3&language=SP
>      >
>      > 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 nueva versión de la propuesta?
>      > - ¿Ve alguna desventaja en esta nueva versión de la propuesta?
>      > - ¿Qué cambios podrían hacerse a esta nueva versión
>      de la 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,
>      >
>      > A proposta LAC-2020-1 tem passado da versão 3 para a versão 4
>      >
>      > Título: Adicionar IPv6 operacional como requisito para as transferências do IPv4
>      >
>      > 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/assignment by LACNIC or a provider 
and that is 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. In the case LACNIC is not able to meet a new entrant request for IPv4
>      space, or the organization does not hold any IPv4 space the IPv6 requirement may be waived for a transfer up to a /22.
>      >
>      > Para ver o detalhe acesse:
>      >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2020-1/language/pt
>      >
>      > As alterações da versão anterior podem ser vistas
> aqui:
>      >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/diff2?id=LAC-2020-1&v=4&v2=3&language=PT
>      >
>      >   Os comentários e os pontos de vista aportados pela comunidade são
>      > vitais para o bom desenvolvimento do processo das propostas
>      > - Você está a favor ou em contra desta nova versão
>      >   da proposta?- Vê alguma desvantagem nesta nova versão
>      >   da proposta?
>      >
>      > - Que mudanças poderiam ser feitas à esta nova versão
>      >   da proposta para que seja mais eficaz?
>      >
>      > Por mais informações entre em contato conosco através do
>      e-mail:
>      >info-politicas at lacnic.net.
>      >
>      > Atenciosamente,
>      > ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
>      >
>      > Dear LACNIC Policy List subscribers,
>      >
>      > Proposal LAC-2020-1 has been updated from version 3 to version 4
>      >
>      > 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/assignment by LACNIC or a provider 
and that is 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. In the case LACNIC is not able to meet a new entrant request for IPv4
>      space, or the organization does not hold any IPv4 space the IPv6 requirement may be waived for a transfer up to a /22.
>      >
>      > To see the details, please click on:
>      >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2020-1/language/en
>      >
>      > The changes from the previous version can be seen here:
>      >https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/diff2?id=LAC-2020-1&v=4&v2=3&language=EN
>      >
>      > The community's comments and opinions are essential to the proper functioning of the policy development process.
>      > - Do you support this new version of the proposal or are you against it?
>      > - Do you think this new version of the proposal has any drawbacks?
>      > - What changes could be made to this new version of the proposal
> to make it more effective?
>      >
>      > For further information, please contactinfo-politicas at lacnic.net
>      > Kind regards,
>      > --
>      > LACNIC - Registro de Direcciones de Internet para América Latina y
>      Caribe
>      > Rambla Rep. de México 6125, CP 11400
>      >
>      > Montevideo-Uruguay
>      >
>      > Teléfono: +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



More information about the Politicas mailing list