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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

I also wonder if the fear of the future collapse of the value of IPv4 
space that has been purchased by these actors is a factor in wanting to 
continue to inhibit the growth of IPv6.

While these entities may ignore the advice of the internet community, they 
certainly do not ignore their investors who have put up the money to 
operate their networks and buy their new IPv4 blocks on the open market.

Those who have invested in additional IPv4 address space do not want their 
"investment" to collapse in value, as it might show their shareholders 
that the "investment" was not a good one.  One way of ensuring their 
"investment" does not ever collapse in value is to advocate against IPv6. 
That puts these entities against the interests of the remaining internet 
in order to justify to their shareholders the cost of IPv4 space.

The current level at google of IPv6 traffic is a bit over 30% and it has 
not contracted at all.  Other metrics of IPv6 traffic show much the same. 
This does not look good for those with investments in high priced IPv4 
addresses, as when IPv6 is adopted, it pressures the market in 2 ways. 
First, there is not a need to buy IPv4 addresses, and Secondly it may 
cause those with now excess IPv4 space after moving to IPv6 to sell.  Both 
factors will cause an eventual collapse of the IPv4 market.

Eventually, when we get to the point that all major traffic generators on 
the internet have IPv6 connectivity, IPv4 service for those players will 
be degraded and then eventually eliminated.  At first, I figure that some 
of the access providers might charge extra for IPv4 service, and consider 
internet access to be IPv6 only.  This would allow them to add on fees 
like CALEA compliance fee or CGnat access fees for those that want IPv4. 
This is much like the regional sports network fees that cable companies 
have been adding for years, passing their addtional costs unto their 
customers and recovering more profit.

Just on the face of the facts, we clearly realize that the current IPv4 
space will collapse on itself.  Each sale results in increasing the 
routing table, as smaller and smaller blocks are advertised for the new 
buyers.  And of course the biggest elephant in the room to wit:

** IPv4 has less than one address for each living person on the earth!! **

While ideas like EZip and others have been proposed, even with maximal 
implementation does it come anywhere near as close to a solution to the 
address space as IPv6, a protocol that is here today, is already installed 
in all major operating systems and is in fact being used by millions of 
devices every day without problem.

It is clearly not abusive for an RIR to insist on having IPv6 in place 
before allowing IPv4 transfers, and I think that those who suggest this 
are wrong.  I would like to see a similar policy adopted in all 5 RIR's. 
This ensures the continued growth of the internet for all, not just those 
that happened to get some of those original class A address blocks or has 
gotten lucky in the resale market.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:

> Hello Albert
> Thanks for sharing these very good points about the need of this proposal.
>
> Unfortunately there is still people with the fear of the unknown to oppose 
> raising points which I believe are invalid like that the RIR doesn't have the 
> power to make this requirement while there are several others in place 
> already for a long time.
>
> But the main point I believe is the sustainability and continuous development 
> of this very same Internet ecosystem we are all in. The lack of keep 
> requiring nothing and keep us in the same situation we have been for a couple 
> of years, with the aggravating that this is causing this is causing damage to 
> a growing number of organizations that either have to spend a lot of more 
> resources in order to cope with the problems caused by others who keep flying 
> the flag of "my network, my rules" ignoring the fact that in order to live in 
> a interconnected environment you must abide to certain rules, standards and 
> usage of protocols.
>
> One last thing is that this proposal is NOT against the transfer of the IPv4. 
> It completely understandable that organization still need to keep going, but 
> rather it just request a counterpart from those in such situations.
>
> Regards
> Fernando
>
> On 21/04/2021 13:04, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>> I have a harder time keeping up with this discussion, since I am not a 
>> native speaker of Spanish, and rely on translation tools. Nearly all 
>> discussion up to this point has been in Spanish.
>> 
>> I speak in favor of the proposal and move its adoption.
>> 
>> I proposed a similar proposal in the ARIN region, and do believe that the 
>> time has long since arrived for parties that receive transferred IPv4 
>> addresses be able to use what will clearly become the protocol of the 
>> future, which is IPv6.  Ten years ago in Miami is when the last /8's of 
>> IPv4 were given out to the 5 RIR's, so this issue is clearly timely.
>> 
>> A lot of incumbent network operators have a "my network, my rules" policy, 
>> and they are perfectly happy to keep running only IPv4 forever. However 
>> that hand dragging on IPv6 adoption, causes a worldwide issue for all the 
>> networks that have adopted IPv6 because of its lack of address space, and 
>> the many whose networks are now mostly IPv6.
>> 
>> These operators would like the day of finally being able to sunset our IPv4 
>> networks and get back to running only one protocol.  Many major networks 
>> have already adopted IPv6 internally, and ONLY run IPv4 at the edge.  
>> Devices like CGnat are expensive to run and require logging to meet CALEA 
>> requirements.  High IPv6 adoption will bring the day 
> of 
>> that sunset closer, and policies that drag that date further into the 
>> future are wrong.
>> 
>> RIR's clearly have the power to set reasonable conditions on transfers. 
>> Some things that we require that are not contested are paying your fees and 
>> keeping up proper contact information.
>> 
>> I see being able to communicate using IPv6, which is rapidly becoming the 
>> majority of traffic at many exchange points is not an unreasonable 
>> requirement.  Of course, there does exist parts of the world where 
>
>> IPv6 is not available and thus the exception which is provided in the 
>> proposal.
>> 
>> I say it is about time, and see no issue in saying to someone that if you 
>> want to get more IPv6 address space via transfer, that it is about time 
>> that you step up to the future, which is IPv6.
>> 
>> There has also been a discussion regarding copyrighted ideas being part of 
>> this proposal.  In every nation I am aware of, ideas cannot be copyrighted, 
>> but only a specfic expression of ideas. Clearly the idea that RIR's should 
>> adopt a policy to require use of IPv6 before authorizing transfer of more 
>> IPv4 to that entity is not a protected idea.
>> 
>> I am the author of what I think was the first proposal to do this in the 
>> ARIN region, and by no means do I consider this proposal a copyright 
>> violation of that idea.  Only expression is protected, not the underlying 
>> idea, and I see this proposal as needed as a stick to get those IPv4 
>> operators to make the right choice for everyone on the internet.
>> 
>> Albert Erdmann
>> Network Administrator
>> Paradise On Line Inc.
>> 
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>> 
>>> Hola
>>> 
>>> Jorge - No hay problema en agregar este requisito para que sea posible 
>>> permitir la transferencia dadas las justificaciones que ya se han 
>>> presentado en varios mensajes anteriores.
>>> En cuanto al argumento de que las transferencias se realizan "fuera del 
>>> registro", ya se ha explicado muchas veces en los mensajes anteriores cómo 
>>> esta no puede considerarse una objeción válida ya que existen suficientes 
>>> garantías para mitigar este temor que está 
>
>>> presente en cualquier otra propuesta.
>>> 
>>> Hernán - No sé qué datos está buscando, pero ya se 
> han presentado 
>>> varios escenarios de la vida real y ejemplos prácticos técnicos y 
>>> económicos, comenzando con aumentos significativos en el costo de 
>
>>> aumentar las operaciones con CGNAT y la creciente necesidad de utilizar el 
>>> mercado de transferencia. Cualquiera que gestione un negocio en Internet o 
>>> una gestión técnica es consciente de todos los problemas y costes que 
>>> conllevan estos problemas.
>>> Con respecto al posible loop, es posible que no hayas podido leer la 
>>> propuesta en su totalidad, pero predice que las nuevas organizaciones que 
>>> no tengan ningún bloque de IPv4 podrán realizar una transferencia inicial 
>>> hasta el límite de un /22 sin la necesidad para demostrar 
>
>>> IPv6 operativo.
>>> No entiendo por qué se considera extraño que esta política "obstaculice" 
>>> si logra realizar una transferencia IPv4 sin la contraparte de IPv6. Desde 
>>> mi punto de vista es normal que alguien que a mediados de 2021 no tenga 
>>> IPv6 operativo tenga otros problemas que están afectando a todos los demás 
>>> a resolver antes de seguir transfiriendo más IPv4.
>>> 
>>> Oscar - hablando simplemente sí. Una empresa que se enfrenta a la 
>
>>> necesidad de transferir más IPv4 para incrementar su operación (y en 
>>> consecuencia su tráfico) y sin embargo, hasta ahora no ha hecho ningún 
>>> despliegue de IPv6 está causando daño a todos los demás, incluidos los que 
>>> hicieron sus obligaciones, por eso ya no se debería permitir que se 
>>> realicen transferencias IPv4 sin la consideración 
> de 
>>> demostrar IPv6 y reducir la tasa de crecimiento de un problema mucho más 
>>> serio de lo que les ha parecido a algunas personas que desean 
> que 
>>> estos actores se sientan muy cómodos para continuar causando estos 
>>> problemas en ecosistema Internet. A menudo he dicho que este requisito no 
>>> es tan grande ni tan difícil de lograr. Quizás algunos estén sobrestimando 
>>> este requisito como algo que hará que las transferencias IPv4 sean 
>>> totalmente inviables y este no es ni nunca fue el propósito de esta 
>>> propuesta.
>>> 
>>> Saludos
>>> Fernando
>>> 
>>> On 13/04/2021 10:28, Oscar A. Robles-Garay wrote:
>>>> Fernando,
>>>> 
>>>> Si estoy entendiendo bien, con tu propuesta esperas que tenga como 
>>>> consecuencia "deseable" que aquellos ISP's que necesitan IPv4 y hayan 
>>>> decidido ir al mercado de IPs por transferencias, se tomen un tiempo para 
>>>> desplegar "algo" de IPv6, es así?
>>>> 
>>>> Saludos,
>>>> 
>>>> Oscar
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/4/21 15:23, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>>>>> Hola Raul
>>>>> Gracias por tu contribución.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No podemos confundir IPv4 y IPv6, que son recursos de numeración, 
>>> el
>>>>> tema principal de nuestra discusión, con MANRS y participación en IXPs. 
>>>>> Si bien MANRS es una buena práctica y la participación 
>>> en IXP
>>>>> es positiva, el uso de *recursos de numeración* y el impacto de 
>
>>>>> cómo el mal uso (o no uso) puede poner en duda la continuidad de la 
>>>>> evolución de un sistema que depende de diferentes actores.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sí, estas restricciones ciertamente están relacionadas con 
> el uso 
>>>>> óptimo de los recursos. Si una organización necesita recursos para 
>>>>> seguir desarrollando y conectando a más personas y ya no puede acceder a 
>>>>> estos recursos y existe una solución (IPv6) que, de ser 
>>> 
>>>>> operativa, elimina
>>>>> estas restricciones, es necesario que esta sea la solución y que sea
>>>>> estimulado.
>>>>> Es importante tener en cuenta que *IPv6 es el protocolo de Internet 
>>>>> estándar* desde 2017, no solo una buena práctica. No soy yo quien lo 
>>>>> dice, sino el IETF.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Con respecto a lo trade-off es lo que he estado tratando de decir que es 
>>>>> muy, muy aceptable. No existe nada difícil, complejo o imposible de 
>>>>> tener, al contrario, es algo bastante obvio para cualquier poseedor de 
>>>>> recursos de numeración. Los efectos de no 
>
>>>>> hacer nada son mucho peores que hacer en este ejemplo.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Saludos
>>>>> Fernando Frediani
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/04/2021 13:28, Raúl Echeberría wrote:
>>>>>> Fernando,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Por supuesto leí la propuesta completa y los cambios de la última 
>>>>>> versión. No leí el título solamente. En ese caso no me 
>>> hubiera
>>>>>> atrevido a hacer comentarios.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Es cierto que todas las políticas de alguna forma fuerzan el 
>>>>>> cumplimiento de ciertos requisitos y afectan de forma más o menos 
>>>>>> artificial el mercado. El punto es donde está el “trade off”.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Se supone que esas restricciones tienen que estar vinculadas al uso 
>>>>>> óptimo de los recursos de numeración, no de Internet en si misma.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Esta propuesta, si bien muy bien intencionada, está desde mi punto 
>>>>> de vista, más allá del "trade off" aceptable.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Internet es una construcción colaborativa donde la base de la 
>>>>>> colaboración y la coordinación es voluntaria. Hacerlo diferente cambia 
>>>>>> la naturaleza de Internet y por lo menos a mi con todo respeto, no me 
>>>>> parece lo correcto. Por supuesto es muy respetable que tengas una 
>>>>> opinión diferente.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Si hoy aprobamos esta política, mañana la propuesta será 
>>> 
>>>>> hacer que la adopción de MANRS sea obligatoria y luego será 
> la 
>>>>> conexión a un IXP y luego  otra cosa. Siempre hay prácticas que nos 
>>>>> parecen buenas y que quisiéramos que sean adoptadas masivamente, pero 
>>>>> pare eso está el trabajo colaborativo que, entre otros, hacen los 
>>> 
>>>>> NOGs y los trabajos de extensión y difusión de organizaciones como ISOC 
>>>>> o los RIRs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No querramos forzar la implementación de buenas prácticas 
>
>>>>>> operativas a través de las políticas.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Saludos,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Raúl
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> El 12 abr. 2021, a las 11:57, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hola de nuevo Raul
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mira, cambiar las políticas como propone esta propuesta no está
>>>>>>> obligando a nadie a poner IPv6 o a convertir a LACNIC en una "policía 
>>>>>>> IPv6". Solo afecta a quienes desean transferir IPv4 y en este caso no 
>>>>>>> hay nada de malo. Y la empresa que quiere actualizar la base de datos 
>>>>>>> whois que funciona bajo reglas que se actualizan según el tiempo y 
>>>>>>> según la necesidad de cada momento. Lo 
> que se 
>>>>>>> está considerando como contraparte no es nada que imposibilite el 
>>>>>>> traspaso si la empresa tiene *un compromiso mínimo* con todos 
> los 
>>>>>>> demás, dado el momento que estamos atravesando.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Otro punto que quiero destacar mucho es que parece que esta propuesta 
>>>>>>> tiene como objetivo solucionar todos los problemas del despliegue de 
>>>>>>> IPv6 
>>>>> y no es nada de eso. Es solo una iniciativa más, pequeña por 
>>> cierto,
>>>>> para incentivar el despliegue de IPv6 y sobre todo para evitar que 
>>>>> quienes necesitan seguir transfiriendo IPv4 sigan causando más problemas 
>>>>> a todos los que están cumpliendo con sus obligaciones.
>>>>>>> Dado el contexto actual, ya no tiene sentido cerrar los ojos y 
>>>>>>> permitirse seguir registrando transferencias IPv4 sin tener en cuenta 
>>>>>>> el desarrollo continuo y saludable del ecosistema del que todos 
>>>>>>> dependemos a diario.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> El tema de las políticas que obligan al mercado es un tema complejo de 
>>>>>>> discutir, pero para decirlo en pocas palabras si fuera tan 
>>>>>>> indiferente, ni siquiera sería necesario justificar 
> la 
>>>>>>> necesidad de IPv4 en el momento de una asignación inicial o una 
>>>>>>> transferencia. . Hay otros RIR que son mucho más permisivos que 
>>>>>>> LACNIC, pero aquí felizmente tomamos la decisión correcta en este 
>>>>>>> contexto.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Fernando
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12/04/2021 11:11, Raúl Echeberría wrote:
>>>>>>>> Olá Gondim
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Concordamos em tudo, exceto em um elemento importante. Compartilho 
>>>>>>>> sua preocupação e acho que algo precisa ser 
> feito. 
>>>>>>>> Onde discordamos
>>>>>>> é que Eu não acredito que forçar o comportamento do 
> mercado de 
>>>>>>> esse jeito,   seja o papel das políticas, .
>>>>>>>> É necessário redobrar os esforços na promoção do IPv6 fornecendo 
>>>>>>>> evidências que mostram os danos que você mencionou. É 
>>> preciso ter
>>>>>>>> bons estudos, boas métricas e trabalhar 
>>>>> para disseminá-los, capacitar, gerar capacidades técnicas, 
> contatar 
>>>>> os operadores e trabalhar com eles.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mas acredito que não é papel da política forçar 
>>> o
>>>>> mercado, nem acredito que essa política será eficiente para atingir o 
>>>>> objetivo que se propõe.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> É por isso Gondim, que embora concorde com você no seu raciocínio e 
>>>>>>>> nas suas preocupações, NÃO apoio 
> esta proposta.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Saudações
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Raúl
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> El 12 abr. 2021, a las 10:46, Gondim <gondim at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Bom dia Raúl,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> O problema é que enquanto não tivermos uma política 
>>> que
>>>>>>> alavanque o IPv6, está não irá crescer como deveria. É a famosa 
>>>>>>> questão do: "Cão correndo atrás do rabo".
>>>>>>>>> As empresas não querem modificar seus sistemas para terem suporte
>>>>>>> à IPv6 porque as Operadoras que lhes fornecem Internet, e aos 
>
>>>>>>> seus clientes, não possuem IPv6 implementado. Em contra partida; as 
>>>>>>> Operadoras não implementam IPv6, porque não veem conteúdo e nem a 
>>>>>>> necessidade de IPv6, enquanto tiverem IPv4. Se ninguém sair da inércia 
>>>>>>> vamos continuar a passos de caroça na implementação de IPv6.
>>>>>>>>> Diariamente, aqui na minha operação, eu vejo assinantes meus
>>>>>>> com problemas para acessarem sistemas externos e o mesmo ocorre em 
>>>>>>> sentido contrário, de acessos externos aos nossos assinantes. Quando 
>>>>>>> tento explicar, ao meu assinante, sobre a necessidade do uso do IPv6, 
>>>>>>> este me diz que sua equipe de TI afirma não existir esse problema de 
>>>>>>> falta de IPv4 e que é obrigação do 
> Provedor dar 
>>>>>>> IPv4 público para ele. Porque este é "universal". O que vejo é uma 
>>>>>>> total 
>>>>> desinformação do meu cliente mas também um reflexo de 
> como o 
>>>>> mercado está vendo esse problema.
>>>>>>>>> Conteúdos informativos e sociais já existem em IPv6 e isso 
>>>>> é bom. Ter Google, Facebook, Netflix, Instagram, Linkedin, Youtube e 
>>>>> outros de conteúdo, ajudam em muito nossa causa mas estamos esquecendo
>>>>>>> de outros sistemas que usamos no dia a dia. Sistemas empresariais, 
>>>>>>> ERPs, empresas que desenvolvem software básico para diversas áreas 
>>>>> e que não sentem a menor vontade de suportar IPv6. Porque muitas das 
>>>>> vezes não conseguem acesso em IPv6 de seus provedores de Internet. 
>>>>> Acredito que isso desmotive tecnicamente o esforço deles.
>>>>>>>>> Cada vez mais estamos investindo em CGNAT. Comprando equipamentos 
>>>>>>>>> caríssimos para continuar usando uma rede remendada, debilitada. 
>>>>>>>>> Porque o conteúdo em IPv4 continua crescendo e outros Sistemas 
>>>>>>>>> Autônomos
>>>>>>> não querem implementar IPv6.
>>>>>>>>> Nós tivemos a época do esclarecimento sobre o IPv6, do 
>
>>>>>>>>> incentivo, diversas organizações ministraram gratuitamente cursos de
>>>>>>> IPv6, palestras, fóruns especializados com materiais técnicos 
>>>>>>> riquíssimos. Conteúdo informativo e educacional foram produzidos e 
>>>>>>> experiências foram compartilhadas com todos, durante anos. Nesse 
>>>>>>> momento; uma política permissiva só vai agravar mais a situação e que 
>>>>>>> sabemos que futuramente será mais difícil resolver os problemas que 
>>>>>>> aparecerão diante de nós.
>>>>>>>>> Estamos falando aqui da sobrevivência da Internet como um eco 
>>> 
>>>>>>>>> sistema que conhecemos. Se não for do RIR essa incumbência, então 
>>>>>>>>> que seja de outro mas tenho convicção que sem isso, não iremos muito 
>>>>>>>>> longe.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> O que me parece é que a ideia colocada nessa proposta é 
> boa mas 
>>>>>>>>> ninguém quer assumir o papel de "carrasco" e fazer valer algo 
>>> que
>>>>>>>>> só vai beneficiar a todos e a Internet. Quantos anos mais serão 
>>>>>>>>> necessários para percebermos isso?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Saudações,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Gondim
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Em 11/04/2021 19:00, Raúl Echeberría escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>> Estimados colegas.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> He seguido con atención la discusión sobre esta propuesta 
>>>>> que me parece muy interesante.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Debo decir que comparto el espíritu que fundamenta la propuesta 
>>>>>>>>>> pero NO la apoyo porque creo que excede el rol que debe tener 
>>>>>>>>>> LACNIC y las políticas de manejo de recursos de 
>
>>>>>>>>>> numeración.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Si bien soy totalmente empático con la idea de que los operadores 
>>>>>>>>>> deberían contribuir activametne con el despliegue 
>>> de
>>>>>>>>>> IPv6 creo que
>>>>>>> es algo que hay que trabajarlo a través de la promoción de 
>>> IPv6 y
>>>>>>> no haciéndolo mandatorio en la política de transferencia.
>>>>>>>>>> Además de pensar, como decía, que esta propuesta excede 
>>> lo que
>>>>>>>>>> desde mi punto de vista, deben ser las políticas de los RIRs, 
>>>>>>>>>> tampoco creo que sea eficiente en lograr el objetivo que se 
>>>>>>>>>> propone.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No es claro que es que “IPv6 está operativo en partes 
>>>>>>>>>> SIGNIFICATIVAS de la red” y tampoco está claro que 
> sucede si, 
>>>>>>>>>> una vez definido este criterio, la situación cambia luego de 
>>> ser
>>>>>>>>>> aprobada la transferencia.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Muchos operadores tienen IPv6 operativo en el core de la red sin 
>>>>>>>>>> dar servicios a usuarios finales, y no hay dudas que el core es una 
>>>>>>>>>> parte más que significativa de la red.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Creo por supuesto que es y seguirá siendo un tema fundamental 
>>>>>>>>>> seguir trabajando por el incremento del despliegue de IPv6 de forma 
>>>>>>>>>> integral en Internet y eso es lo que ya hacen los RIRs y muchas 
>>>>>>>>>> otras organizaciones. Me parece que hay que continuar trabajando 
>>>>>>>>>> estos temas también
>>>>>>> en los grupos de operadores pero no apoyo que este requerimiento se 
>>>>>>> incluya en la política de transferencia tal como se propone.
>>>>>>>>>> Saludos al autor de la propuesta por traer a discusión un tema 
>>>>> super relevante. La discusión en si misma contribuye a la 
>>>>> concientización sobre la necesidad de la aceleración del despliegue de 
>>>>> IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Saludos,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Raúl
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2.3.2.18.3 Los destinatarios en la región de LACNIC deberán
>>>>>>> tener espacio IPv6 distribuido/asignado por LACNIC o por un proveedor 
>>>>>>> y deberán poder probar que este espacio está en uso, para lo cual 
>>>>>>> deberán proporcionarle a LACNIC los detalles documentados del 
>>>>>>> despliegue de la red para demostrar que IPv6 está operativo 
>>> en
>>>>>>> partes significativas de la red.
>>>>>>>>>> El personal de LACNIC definirá un criterio mínimo para garantizar 
>>>>>>>>>> que la información proporcionada demuestre que IPv6 está
>>>>>>> operativo. De ser necesario, el personal puede requerir más 
>>>>>>> información para validar este requisito.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> El 31 mar. 2021, a las 11:37, info-politicas at lacnic.net escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> [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 a info-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 contact info-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
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>