Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Philip Smith]

FWIW, a few years ago we did have at least two APRICOTs where there was
nothing in parallel with the Thursday Policy SIG. It meant that the
technical/ops part of the conference finished on Wednesday. APRICOT 2009
was one example - for reference. (And tech/ops people left on Wednesday
night.)

But we reverted to putting regular conference content in parallel with
the Policy SIG following requests and feedback for that.

And yes, if there is clear desire from the Policy SIG to be standalone,
the APRICOT PC will pay very close attention to that desire. :-)

philip
--


Skeeve Stevens wrote on 2/03/2015 12:04 :
> OK... so a year in the future...   that should easily be dealt with by
> talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable
> and obvious thing to do.
> 
> Is it possible for this meeting?  Competing event for Policy means there
> will be little reason to entice people to come .
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com  ; www.v4now.com
> 
> 
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> 
> facebook.com/v4now
>  ; 
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> 
> 
> twitter.com/theispguy  ;
> blog: www.theispguy.com 
> 
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi  > wrote:
> 
> Skeeve,
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting.
> I'm asking about future meetings.
> 
> Regards,
> Masato
> 
> 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens  >:
> 
> Masato-san,
> 
> Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or
> Lightening talks for this event?  I would love to go to both.
> 
> I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not
> APNIC events.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com  ; www.v4now.com
> 
> 
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383
>  ; skype://skeeve
> 
> facebook.com/v4now
>  ; 
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> 
> 
> twitter.com/theispguy  ;
> blog: www.theispguy.com 
> 
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi
> mailto:myama...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean
> during the ML discussion,
> it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is
> best for Policy SIG.
> 
> Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu.
> However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation?
> (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
> 
> Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG?
> (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
> 
> Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in
> Fukuoka.
> 
> Regards,
> Masato Yamanishi
> APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
> 
> *  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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *  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
> 
*  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

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Skeeve Stevens]

OK... so a year in the future...   that should easily be dealt with by
talking to the Apricot Program Committee... as it is a very reasonable and
obvious thing to do.

Is it possible for this meeting?  Competing event for Policy means there
will be little reason to entice people to come .


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Masato Yamanishi 
wrote:

> Skeeve,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting.
> I'm asking about future meetings.
>
> Regards,
> Masato
>
> 2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens :
>
>> Masato-san,
>>
>> Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening
>> talks for this event?  I would love to go to both.
>>
>> I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events.
>>
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>
>> facebook.com/v4now ;  
>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>
>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>>
>>
>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML
>>> discussion,
>>> it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for
>>> Policy SIG.
>>>
>>> Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu.
>>> However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation?
>>> (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
>>>
>>> Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG?
>>> (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
>>>
>>> Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Masato Yamanishi
>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
>>>
>>> *  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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
*  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

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Masato Yamanishi]

Skeeve,

Unfortunately, I don't think we can change the schedule in this meeting.
I'm asking about future meetings.

Regards,
Masato

2015-03-01 18:46 GMT-08:00 Skeeve Stevens :

> Masato-san,
>
> Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening
> talks for this event?  I would love to go to both.
>
> I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML
>> discussion,
>> it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for
>> Policy SIG.
>>
>> Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu.
>> However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation?
>> (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
>>
>> Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG?
>> (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
>>
>> Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Masato Yamanishi
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
>>
>> *  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
>>
>>
>
*  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

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Skeeve Stevens]

Masato-san,

Are you suggesting that we are able to change either Policy or Lightening
talks for this event?  I would love to go to both.

I think this is only really a problem at Apricot events, not APNIC events.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi 
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML
> discussion,
> it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy
> SIG.
>
> Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu.
> However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation?
> (e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)
>
> Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG?
> (I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)
>
> Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.
>
> Regards,
> Masato Yamanishi
> APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
>
> *  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
>
>
*  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

[sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Masato Yamanishi]

Dear All,

While this point was raised by Jessica, Skeeve, and Dean during the ML
discussion,
it is also big question for me, which day and time-slot is best for Policy
SIG.

Historically, we have SIG session somewhere in Thu.
However, do you think it is a barrier for wider participation?
(e.g. many operators are leaving in Thu PM?)

Also, which session should not be in parallel with Policy SIG?
(I also don't want to miss Lightning talks as Skeeve mentioned)

Please share your thoughts on this list and/or offline in Fukuoka.

Regards,
Masato Yamanishi
APNIC Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
*  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

Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

[Ajay Kumar]

Personally,I don't see any benefit,which community may be getting after
accepting this proposal. I don't support this proposal.
Regards,
Ajai Kumar

On 24 February 2015 at 22:41, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what
> implementation would likely
> cost.
>
> First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary situation.
> I’m not sure
> it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it.
>
> Second, I’m wondering if there’s any real advantage to having this level
> of detail on
> residential subscribers that don’t even get full addresses, since we don’t
> really tend
> to have it for single-address subscribers now.
>
> IMHO, best to just let each ISP keep this information for themselves as
> the relevant contact
> for abuse and such is usually the ISP and not the residential user anyway.
>
> Owen
>
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:53 , Masato Yamanishi  wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.
>
> If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database.
> I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat,
> and it says it might take more than 6 months.
> I think same thing will happen for whois database of each NIRs.
> And if your company have a system linked with APNIC/NIR whois database, it
> will be impacted also.
>
> As Chair, I'm always very neutral for each proposal, including prop-115.
> However, I would like to emphasis prop-115 should be discussed more widely
> as it has wide impact.
> It is very appreciated if you will express your views.
>
> Regards,
> Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
>
>
> 2015-02-04 14:52 GMT-06:00 Masato Yamanishi :
>
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> The Problem statement "Registration of detailed assignment information
>> in whois DB" has been assigned a Policy Proposal number following the
>> submission of a new version sent to the Policy SIG for consideration.
>>
>> The proposal, "prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment
>> information in whois DB" now includes an objective and proposed solution.
>>
>> Information about this and earlier versions is available from:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115
>>
>> You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
>>
>>  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>>tell the community about your situation.
>>  - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>>  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>>  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>>effective?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Masato
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in
>>whois DB
>> 
>>
>> Proposer:  Ruri Hiromi
>>hir...@inetcore.com
>>
>>Tomohiro Fujisaki
>>fujis...@syce.net
>>
>>
>> 1. Problem statement
>> 
>>
>> Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment
>> information in more detail to specify user IP address.
>>
>> With out this information, operators cannot filter out specific
>> address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering
>> whole ISP's address range).
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4
>>
>> ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing
>> technology with assignment of IP address and specified port
>> range to their users.
>>
>> In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user.
>>
>> ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA
>> 192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB
>>
>> or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X
>> minimum size is /32
>>
>> 2) address assignment size information in IPv6
>>
>>The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP to
>>ISP, and address ranges in one ISP. Address assignment prefix
>>size will be necessary.
>>
>>ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA
>>2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB
>>
>>or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56
>>
>>
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>> -
>>
>> Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to
>> their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be
>> filtered or not.
>>
>> The goal is providing more specific information to support these
>> actions.
>>
>>
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>> -
>>
>> No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions.
>>
>>
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ---
>>
>> Provide accurate filteri