[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2020-1
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Apr 9 13:02:35 -03 2021
Hi Mike,
To be very honest, I'm not expert on the carbon taxes. I cited that because it looks to me similar, not saying is exactly the same.
I understand that the market is starting, but I also believe that it is normal, in will go up, and I also consider that some proposals need time to reach consensus, even years, but if you don't start the discussion soon then, it may be too late to be effective.
Sometimes numbers don't make all. I'm convinced that there are no negative effects with this proposal, but on the other way around.
Saludos,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9/4/21 16:57, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
Do we impose carbon taxes on the frailest of economies, those who don't contribute to the problem?
That is the situation with the incredibly weak IPv4 market in the region. The market is so tiny that it does not contribute to any problems or additional costs, and it won't contribute to any solutions if it stays so tiny. Like imposing carbon restrictions on Samoa, it will have no affect on the global climate.
I mean there has never even been a single /16 transfer in LACNIC! There might as well not be a transfer market in LACNIC with the current transfer volume. Most brokers won't even work with LACNIC IPv4 blocks and the largest buyer in the world won't touch them, because the market here is broken.
You are blaming transfer recipients for increasing costs on the rest of us in an interconnected world. Surely then, the costs associated with the transfers in other regions, hundreds of times more than in LACNIC, would provide some evidence. Can you provide that? Who in LACNIC is paying for the abundance of transfers elsewhere, and how much? The logic indicating that transfer participants impose costs on others is very weak and tenuous. Maybe the RIRs with working markets need to send reparations to LACNIC?
And if every transfer recipient in LACNIC history who did not have IPv6 operational was forced to do this, what would there be? 10 or 20 new for-show-only IPv6 networks? Would that change anything?
Instead of recognizing and fixing the glaring problems with the LACNIC transfer market, this proposal will further limit the development of the market, contrary to the community's wishes expressed in 2.3.2.18.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 5:03 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 versión de la propuesta LAC-2020-1
Hola,
Me parece un comentario muy acertado, muchas gracias por desarrollarlo con tanto detalle.
Quiero aportar algo mas, que tiene que ver con lo comentado por Edmundo acerca de lo que es "justo", para ahorrar correos, que siempre luego hay quejas si escribo muchos ...
Cuantas mas transferencias se hagan de IPv4, y de bloques mas desagregados, hay mas coste para el resto de la comunidad, porque incrementamos la tabla de routing the IPv4, y por lo tanto, los que despliegan IPv6, no solo invierten en ese despliegue, sino que "pagan" parte del coste de los que no despliegan IPv6.
Creo que eso es injusto para la comunidad visto de forma global.
Si nos aseguramos, como hace la propuesta, que quien necesite IPv4 lo haga teniendo en cuenta que tambien tiene que desplegar IPv6, estamos en un camino "mas justo".
Hay que comprender, que en algunos casos, quien quiere desplegar IPv6, puede necesitar nuevos bloques de IPv4 para, por ejemplo IPv6-only con IPv4aaS, pero al menos, si esas direcciones las necesita para desplegar IPv6, y no para extender artificialmente IPv4, lo hace mirando hacia el futuro y no quedandose anclado en el pasado.
Si permitimos que obtengan direcciones IPv4 quienes no desplieguen IPv6, se genera un perjuicio para los que necesitan esos bloques IPv4 para desplegar IPv6+IPv4aaS, incluso pueden incrementarse los precios. Esta claro que eso es "menos justo".
Por último, cuanto mas despliegue de IPv6 y mas rápido podamos afianzar, menor será la necesidad de mantener esos bloques IPv4, y podremos empezar a reducir las tablas de routing de IPv4.
Internet es global, es un bien comun de la humanidad. Es mas justo *para todos*, no sólo los operadores, que sea más facil, competitivo y asequible, y eso se logra moviéndonos a IPv6-only lo antes posible, inicialmente con IPv4aaS, que de forma natural "deja de usarse" según crece el despliegue de IPv6 SIN que los operadores tengan que invertir de nuevo, pero en cambio, recuperando recursos ya que pueden transferir las direcciones IPv4 que les sobra a los que están mas atrasados en el despliegue de IPv6 y aún las necesitan.
Pensemos en el cambio climático. Lo que propone Fernando es, en cierto modo, acercarnos al modelo de compensación de emisiones de carbono. Si necesitas IPv4 (si necesitas contaminar), debes contribuir al cambio a IPv6 (contribuir a la reducción de emisiones de carbono), pagando un peaje por ello (desplegando IPv6), y ese peaje es beneficioso para todas las partes (los que ya tienen IPv6 y los que necesitan direcciones IPv4 para llegar a IPv6).
Si creemos que es justo y un buen balance el permitir la emision de carbono a quien no pueda de la noche a la mañana eliminarlo por completo (como es el caso de IPv4), entonces es justo también pedir que pagues ese peaje en lugar de ocasionar costes a todos (incluso tu mismo).
Saludos,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9/4/21 4:34, "Politicas en nombre de Gondim" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de gondim at gmail.com> escribió:
Prezados,
Eu concordo e apoio a proposta LAC-2020-1. Afinal qual é o grande
objetivo em se implantar o IPv6? Não é permitir que a Internet continue
crescendo e oferecendo as melhores experiências de acesso a todos? Fazer
com que serviços cheguem corretamente a todos?
Para que o IPv6 realmente resolva os problemas que temos hoje, é
necessário que todos tenham um comprometimento. Não adianta nada a minha
rede, por exemplo, ter o IPv6 implantado, se a outra ponta da
comunicação ainda usar IPv4 e isso porque o AS simplesmente não quer
usar o IPv6.
O sistema autônomo que pensa dessa forma de nada vai agregar à nossa
comunidade e pior, vai contribuir para gerar cada vez mais problemas
para outros sistemas autônomos que estão com IPv6 operacional. É justo
alguns se esforçarem para implantar IPv6 enquanto que outros apenas
querem mais IPv4? Enquanto for pensado dessa forma cada vez mais veremos
situações onde a necessidade de uso do IPv6 é desacreditada por
profissionais e empresas. Sistemas básicos corporativos que não possuem
suporte a IPv6 e não o fazem porque não acreditam que IPv4 acabou e isso
está impactando e engessando o mercado mundial. Deixar essas pessoas
adquirirem mais prefixos IPv4 sem o comprometimento do IPv6 vai só
confirmar o que, erroneamente, essas pessoas já acreditam, que IPv4 não
acabou.
Hoje vejo que estamos na era do CGNAT e muitos veem isso como uma
solução para a falta de IPv4. Eu vejo CGNAT como uma muleta, apoiando
uma Internet cada vez mais deficiente. Empresas gastando enormes
quantidades de dinheiro em caixas caríssimas de CGNAT, quando sabemos
que o uso do IPv6 faz diminuir essa necessidade e com isso investir em
coisas que realmente são importantes. Sinceramente não consigo entender
a lógica em se protelar ou de não se adicionar essa exigência que parece
bastante adequada para o momento atual pois isso somente irá acelerar
chegar em um determinado momento que não haverá IPv4 nem mesmo para se
colocar no CGNAT. Aí sim vamos ter uma correria desordenada para se
implantar o IPv6. Hoje nenhum AS deveria esperar acabar o IPv4 para
implantar o IPv6. Nosso AS53135 distribui IPv6 para os nossos assinantes
desde 2013.
Se deixarmos essa proposta de lado, vamos sim é contribuir para uma
Internet cada vez mais deficiente, debilitada e cheia de remendos. Eu me
orgulho de chegar em casa, ligar meu notebook, colocar o tcpdump
escutando a minha interface de rede e ver que todo o meu Netflix está
acessando via IPv6. Outra coisa que se grandes empresas como Google,
Facebook e Netflix, que tem uma enorme estrutura de rede, muito mais
complexa e gigantesca que de muitos aqui, fizeram seu dever de casa e
hoje suportam IPv6. Por que devemos facilitar o recurso IPv4, tão
escasso, para empresas que não querem usar IPv6?
Então baseado nisso acredito sim que é mais do que justo que se alguém
necessitar de IPv4 que este, pelo menos, já esteja com IPv6 sendo
implantado em sua rede e distribuindo para seus assinantes. Somente
assim vamos fomentar o uso do IPv6 e contribuir para a nossa Internet
continuar crescendo como deveria ser.
Em 07/04/2021 21:38, Fernando Frediani escreveu:
> Hola > > Como se mencionó muchas veces durante esta discusión, el temor de
> que alguien realice una transferencia fuera del sistema es una >
violación de las reglas y debe ser sancionado de acuerdo con las >
mismas reglas, a menos que alguien argumente que no se debe sancionar >
a alguien que hace una transferencia fuera del sistema. El sistema > RIR
y las reglas que la propia organización acordó seguir. Una > propuesta
cuando sea necesaria es necesaria independientemente de los > miedos que
puedan existir. Lo importante para solucionar este punto > es que
existen herramientas legales y administrativas para resolver > los casos
de quienes quieren luchar contra el sistema y las reglas > que ellos
mismos acordaron. > > Esto no es una "presión artificial", sino un
**requisito* *justo** > para todos los demás que se vean afectados por
esa transferencia de > IPv4 **sin la contraparte para con todos los
demás*.* > > Es normal tener un requisito para la justificación y
recepción de > direcciones IPv4, IPv6 y ASN, así como para
transferencias. Este > extra que se propone no es demasiado o algo que
imposibilita las > transferencias. Al final, el punto a tener en cuenta
es que si > alguien no puede demostrar el funcionamiento de IPv6, no le
conviene > a la comunidad afectada permitir que se realice una
transferencia de > IPv4 hasta que pueda comprometerse con todos los
involucrados. > Reforzando una vez más: este es el espíritu de la
propuesta. > > Como dijo Henri en su respuesta, *no hay más excusas para
no poder > probar IPv6 operativo*. Si alguien a mediados de 2021 no
puede, > entonces hay algo muy mal y si hay algo mal hay que corregirlo
y > esta propuesta viene para ayudar eso. > > Fernando Frediani > > On
07/04/2021 10:50, Miguel A. Brante wrote: >> Hola a todos, >> >> >>
Entiendo y hasta apoyo el fondo de esta propuesta, sin embargo no >>
comparto en lo absoluto la forma. >> >> El poner una presión artificial
para la adopción de IPv6 para > quienes tengan la urgencia de recibir
recursos IPv4, tendrá como > resultado que se hagan transacciones en el
mercado externo y quizá > fuera >> de los marcos regulatorios del RIR.
En el mejor de los casos >> podría provocar implementaciones apuradas,
pobres o disfuncionales >> con el fin de cumplir un mero requisito. Al
final del día, LACNIC >> no va a tener ni la capacidad ni la potestad de
auditar la >> implementación que he puesto en el papel. >> >> Veo mucho
más positivo fomentar la adopción de IPv6 mediante >> argumentos y no
mediante barreras y/u obligaciones que a mi >> parecer no harán un
cambio significativo. >> >> Saludos >> >> Miguel Brante >> >> >> -----
Mensaje original ----- De:info-politicas at lacnic.net Para: >> "Lista para
discusion de politicas de la comunidad de >>
LACNIC"<politicas at lacnic.net> Enviados: Miércoles, 31 de Marzo >> 2021
11:37:37 Asunto: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la >> propuesta
LAC-2020-1 >> >> [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 >
_______________________________________________ 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.
More information about the Politicas
mailing list