Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}

  • To: "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
  • From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 05:48:24 +0530
  • Cc: "<sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <11Sep1.111644nzst.119193 at basil.nzdf dot mil dot nz>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <4E5EB855.2080903@lpnz.org> <11Sep1.111644nzst.119193@basil.nzdf.mil.nz>
    • 
      > 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 at lists dot apnic dot net
      > [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton
      > Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m.
      > To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot 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 at lists dot apnic dot 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 at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy