Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
_______________________________________________________________________
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary -----------------
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics ----------------------
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date ------------------------------
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either strongly supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between.
- Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition. I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the proposition.
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space, like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a Policy directive.
I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on this list. For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
_______________________________________________________________________
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary -----------------
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics ----------------------
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date ------------------------------
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either strongly supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between.
- Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
Dear Mike,
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space, like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition. I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the proposition.
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space, like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a Policy directive.
I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on this list. For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either strongly supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between. - Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Naresh,
Because Policy is by definition mandatory and inflexible - they say in effect "One size fits all. This is the size. Wear it. Don't complain, we don't care: this is the Policy".
Administrative arrangements should be flexible and adaptable.
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
Therefore, an administrative arrangement that suits the objective of proponents on Prop-100 would appear to be a more pragmatic approach. Not the least reason is because it appears to me quite unlikely that consensus can be reached in favour of Prop-100 for APNIC 32.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 12:18 p.m. To: HENDERSON MIKE, MR Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
Dear Mike,
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an
administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition. I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the proposition.
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no
objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a Policy directive.
I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on this list. For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
_
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks ______________________________________________________________________ _
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either
strongly
supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between. - Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence
Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
Dear Mike,
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
I don't write policies for living but think policies for larger interest. In my opinion, this proposed policy shud be understood or viewed from the perspective of being seen fair to all economies.
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
In my opinion, we shud not generalize a few objections or a few support and at least term as one block or other.
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:46, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
Naresh,
Because Policy is by definition mandatory and inflexible - they say in effect "One size fits all. This is the size. Wear it. Don't complain, we don't care: this is the Policy".
Administrative arrangements should be flexible and adaptable.
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
Therefore, an administrative arrangement that suits the objective of proponents on Prop-100 would appear to be a more pragmatic approach. Not the least reason is because it appears to me quite unlikely that consensus can be reached in favour of Prop-100 for APNIC 32.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 12:18 p.m. To: HENDERSON MIKE, MR Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
Dear Mike,
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an
administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition. I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the proposition.
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no
objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a Policy directive.
I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on this list. For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
_
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks ______________________________________________________________________ _
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either
strongly
supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between.
Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence
Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
Hi Naresh
On 1/09/2011, at 3:56 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear Mike,
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
I don't write policies for living but think policies for larger interest. In my opinion, this proposed policy shud be understood or viewed from the perspective of being seen fair to all economies.
There has still not been any explanation as to how the current allocation policies of APNIC are not fair to all economies. Can you please explain?
thanks Jay
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
In my opinion, we shud not generalize a few objections or a few support and at least term as one block or other.
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:46, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
Naresh,
Because Policy is by definition mandatory and inflexible - they say in effect "One size fits all. This is the size. Wear it. Don't complain, we don't care: this is the Policy".
Administrative arrangements should be flexible and adaptable.
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
Therefore, an administrative arrangement that suits the objective of proponents on Prop-100 would appear to be a more pragmatic approach. Not the least reason is because it appears to me quite unlikely that consensus can be reached in favour of Prop-100 for APNIC 32.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 12:18 p.m. To: HENDERSON MIKE, MR Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
Dear Mike,
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an
administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition. I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the proposition.
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no
objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a Policy directive.
I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on this list. For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
_
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks ______________________________________________________________________ _
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either
strongly
supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between.
Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence
Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Dear Jay
There has still not been any explanation as to how the current allocation policies of APNIC are not fair to all economies. Can you please explain?
The proposed policy is about reservation.
"To be seen fair", if not more, is equally important to be fair.
Here, thought is to reassure those economies who are not represented by the community members in policy making, by reserving the resource irrespective of its ample availability.
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:47, Jay Daley jay@nzrs.net.nz wrote:
Hi Naresh
On 1/09/2011, at 3:56 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear Mike,
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
I don't write policies for living but think policies for larger interest. In my opinion, this proposed policy shud be understood or viewed from the perspective of being seen fair to all economies.
There has still not been any explanation as to how the current allocation policies of APNIC are not fair to all economies. Can you please explain?
thanks Jay
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
In my opinion, we shud not generalize a few objections or a few support and at least term as one block or other.
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:46, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
Naresh,
Because Policy is by definition mandatory and inflexible - they say in effect "One size fits all. This is the size. Wear it. Don't complain, we don't care: this is the Policy".
Administrative arrangements should be flexible and adaptable.
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
Therefore, an administrative arrangement that suits the objective of proponents on Prop-100 would appear to be a more pragmatic approach. Not the least reason is because it appears to me quite unlikely that consensus can be reached in favour of Prop-100 for APNIC 32.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 12:18 p.m. To: HENDERSON MIKE, MR Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
Dear Mike,
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an
administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz wrote:
I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition. I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the proposition.
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no
objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a Policy directive.
I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on this list. For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
_
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks ______________________________________________________________________ _
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either
strongly
supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between.
Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence
Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840
Hi Naresh
There has still not been any explanation as to how the current allocation policies of APNIC are not fair to all economies. Can you please explain?
The proposed policy is about reservation.
"To be seen fair", if not more, is equally important to be fair.
Here, thought is to reassure those economies who are not represented by the community members in policy making, by reserving the resource irrespective of its ample availability.
Thank you but you have still not explained how the current policy is unfair. I am even more confused as you accept that there is ample availability. There has to be a reason that economies need reassuring - what is that reason?
Also, who are the economies who are not represented by community members in policy making?
Jay
On 01/09/2011, at 2:13 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear Jay
There has still not been any explanation as to how the current allocation policies of APNIC are not fair to all economies. Can you please explain?
The proposed policy is about reservation.
None of the arguments for reservation have been at all convincing. None of them, to me, appear to be solving real problems and getting real and useful outcomes. The arguments for reservations always seem to have to appeal to thing which don't have much of a place in APNIC policy making.
I don't like the idea of IPv6 address space reservation. It seems unnecessary and will create more conflict and not usefully change the outcome overtime for the better.
I don't see how, given the size of IPv6 space and the way we're allocating it at the moment (fairly conservatively) that reservation will do anything useful other than create arguments on sig-policy for the medium and long term future. I've seen NO argument that persuasively convinces me to even consider reservation.
"To be seen fair", if not more, is equally important to be fair.
It's not at all clear to me how reservation makes things fair or even seen to be fair. I can make some quite good arguments that reservation maybe used by some groups to reduce fairness within "economies" by creating political barriers to allocation and thus stopping competition.
Here, thought is to reassure those economies who are not represented by the community members in policy making, by reserving the resource irrespective of its ample availability.
I've seen only one economy making claims similar to this.
MMC
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:47, Jay Daley <jay@nzrs.net.nzmailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
Hi Naresh
On 1/09/2011, at 3:56 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear Mike,
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
I don't write policies for living but think policies for larger interest. In my opinion, this proposed policy shud be understood or viewed from the perspective of being seen fair to all economies.
There has still not been any explanation as to how the current allocation policies of APNIC are not fair to all economies. Can you please explain?
thanks Jay
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
In my opinion, we shud not generalize a few objections or a few support and at least term as one block or other.
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:46, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nzmailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Naresh,
Because Policy is by definition mandatory and inflexible - they say in effect "One size fits all. This is the size. Wear it. Don't complain, we don't care: this is the Policy".
Administrative arrangements should be flexible and adaptable.
In my view - and I write policy for a living - policy should dictate management practices as infrequently as possible. It is, I believe, far better if policy simply puts the boundaries around the management arrangements, and lets managers get on with managing within those boundaries.
What at least some parts of the Indian Internet community - including apparently the Indian Department of Telecommunications - want, is not the same as other parts of the APNIC community want, judging from the feedback on this Proposition. Even if the view of all Indian APNIC members is unanimous on this, this unanimity is not shared by other APNIC members.
Therefore, an administrative arrangement that suits the objective of proponents on Prop-100 would appear to be a more pragmatic approach. Not the least reason is because it appears to me quite unlikely that consensus can be reached in favour of Prop-100 for APNIC 32.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 12:18 p.m. To: HENDERSON MIKE, MR Cc: <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
Dear Mike,
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nzmailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition. I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the proposition.
I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with fast developing needs for internet-connected devices. This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be incorporated into APNIC Policy.
On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no
objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a Policy directive.
I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on this list. For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
______________________________________________________________________ _
prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks ______________________________________________________________________ _
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Andy and Terence
Proposal summary -----------------
This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy.
Discussion statistics ----------------------
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
Number of people participating in discussions: 34
Summary of discussion to date ------------------------------
- There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either strongly supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between.
- Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Matthew Moyle-Croft Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs Internode /Agile Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: mmc@internode.com.aumailto:mmc@internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.nethttp://www.on.net/ Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
[Chu, Yi [NTK]] Quote MMC: It's not at all clear to me how reservation makes things fair or even seen to be fair. I can make some quite good arguments that reservation maybe used by some groups to reduce fairness within "economies" by creating political barriers to allocation and thus stopping competition. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] end quote
I agree with MMC. Reservation for one economy makes it unfair to organizations in other economies. Based on the discussion in the SIG meeting, organizations in India are not required to use allocation from the Indian national block. So the Indian national block is a reserved resource that privileges one economy.
yi
________________________________
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
Activity Summary
- 4220 days inactive
- 4220 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 6 participants
- 9 comments
Participants (6)
-
Andy Linton
-
Chu, Yi [NTK]
-
HENDERSON MIKE, MR
-
Jay Daley
-
Matthew Moyle-Croft
-
Naresh Ajwani