Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

I see, understood Gaurab and Skeeve it's not just a case of Pakistan.

Would it accomodate the situation if the criteria is revised as below?

 a. Mutlihomed/plan to be multihomed in the near future OR
 b. A single homed but is/plans to be connected by BGP with upstream if
wit justification of why an ASN is needed for such network

Put it in the guidelines that a case such asit is expected that an
applicant's environment of connectivity leads  to the needs to
constantly change upstreams can be a reason to justify b.

I haven't talked to operators from Japan about this so would also
welcome their feedback (or anyone else offcourse!) if this is likely to
creat issues.


Izumi


On 2015/03/04 14:15, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Yes, this is the same in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, etc.
> 
> 
> ...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 Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya 
> wrote:
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 3/3/15 6:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>
>>> * Case of Pakistan It was helpful to hear about the case of
>>> Pakistan from Aftab, if I understood it correctly, wishes to be
>>> able to switch upstreams easily to ensure adequate service will be
>>> provided. It was felt that those needs should be tolerated and find
>>> ways to address it, questions were raised whether we should change
>>> the general criteria to address an indivisual case like this.
>>
>> I don't think this is specific to Pakistan. It's applicable across the
>> board in the region. Carriers like to keep their customers captive
>> everywhere, just the level of professionalism varies.
>>
>> - -gaurab
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAlT2lBgACgkQSo7fU26F3X2WXwCdF/dMBs+qYwEKVTeuUckJWF/5
>> TXIAn3rhAF1IKhNbHv++a+IK/RMr8nLP
>> =YrfM
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>> *  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] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Yes, this is the same in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, etc.


...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 Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya 
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 3/3/15 6:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>
> > * Case of Pakistan It was helpful to hear about the case of
> > Pakistan from Aftab, if I understood it correctly, wishes to be
> > able to switch upstreams easily to ensure adequate service will be
> > provided. It was felt that those needs should be tolerated and find
> > ways to address it, questions were raised whether we should change
> > the general criteria to address an indivisual case like this.
>
> I don't think this is specific to Pakistan. It's applicable across the
> board in the region. Carriers like to keep their customers captive
> everywhere, just the level of professionalism varies.
>
> - -gaurab
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlT2lBgACgkQSo7fU26F3X2WXwCdF/dMBs+qYwEKVTeuUckJWF/5
> TXIAn3rhAF1IKhNbHv++a+IK/RMr8nLP
> =YrfM
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> *  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] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 3/3/15 6:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:

> * Case of Pakistan It was helpful to hear about the case of
> Pakistan from Aftab, if I understood it correctly, wishes to be
> able to switch upstreams easily to ensure adequate service will be
> provided. It was felt that those needs should be tolerated and find
> ways to address it, questions were raised whether we should change
> the general criteria to address an indivisual case like this.

I don't think this is specific to Pakistan. It's applicable across the
board in the region. Carriers like to keep their customers captive
everywhere, just the level of professionalism varies.

- -gaurab

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAlT2lBgACgkQSo7fU26F3X2WXwCdF/dMBs+qYwEKVTeuUckJWF/5
TXIAn3rhAF1IKhNbHv++a+IK/RMr8nLP
=YrfM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
*  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

[Dean Pemberton]

The Policy-SIG is also open to anyone where as the consensus at the AMM is
members only.
It also seemed like it gave people a time to get additional input/feedback
between the Policy-SIG and the AMM.

--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> What I can recall, the objection was more members join AMM rather
> Policy-SIG therefore the consensus at Policy-SIG is not actual consensus of
> the members at the event. I hope secretariat can suggest what other issues
> were registered.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>
>> Let's try again?  What were the objections last time?
>>
>>
>> ...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 Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree.  Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus.
>>> Unfortunately the policy failed.
>>> --
>>> Dean Pemberton
>>>
>>> Technical Policy Advisor
>>> InternetNZ
>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>>
>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani  wrote:
>>> > Great to know this Philip.
>>> >
>>> > We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal
>>> on
>>> > reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
>>> > operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the
>>> > consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that
>>> > consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions
>>> and
>>> > not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
>>> >
>>> > I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and
>>> would
>>> > like to raise this again.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Izumi
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
>>> >> 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 <
>>> myama...@gmail.com
>>> >>> > 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.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>  

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Aftab Siddiqui]

What I can recall, the objection was more members join AMM rather
Policy-SIG therefore the consensus at Policy-SIG is not actual consensus of
the members at the event. I hope secretariat can suggest what other issues
were registered.

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

> Let's try again?  What were the objections last time?
>
>
> ...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 Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree.  Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus.
>> Unfortunately the policy failed.
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani  wrote:
>> > Great to know this Philip.
>> >
>> > We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on
>> > reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
>> > operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the
>> > consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that
>> > consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and
>> > not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
>> >
>> > I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would
>> > like to raise this again.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Izumi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >>>   ; <
>> http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>> >>>  
>> >>>
>> >>>  twitter.com/theispguy  ;
>> >>>

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Skeeve Stevens]

Let's try again?  What were the objections last time?


...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 Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> I agree.  Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus.
> Unfortunately the policy failed.
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani  wrote:
> > Great to know this Philip.
> >
> > We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on
> > reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
> > operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the
> > consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that
> > consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and
> > not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
> >
> > I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would
> > like to raise this again.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Izumi
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
> >> 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
> >>>   ; <
> http://twitter.com/networkceoau>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 a

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Dean Pemberton]

I agree.  Thats why I was in favour of abandoning the AMM consensus.
Unfortunately the policy failed.
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani  wrote:
> Great to know this Philip.
>
> We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on
> reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
> operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the
> consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that
> consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and
> not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
>
> I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would
> like to raise this again.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Izumi
>
>
>
> On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
>> 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 managem

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi all,


I discussed with some folks from Japan who are here at APRICOT and would
like to share a couple of observations:

* ASN assignments to those with portable assignments
 - Support from a number of people on ASN assignments to those
   with portable assignments is noted.
 - Howver, it is felt that it's better to set the criteria which is
   specific to ASN, not to make it dependent with portable assignment.
 - You don't know whether future changes in criteria for portable
   assighments will make sense as criteria for ASN assignments.

* Case of Pakistan
It was helpful to hear about the case of Pakistan from Aftab, if I
understood it correctly, wishes to be able to switch upstreams easily to
ensure adequate service will be provided. It was felt that those needs
should be tolerated and find ways to address it, questions were raised
whether we should change the general criteria to address an indivisual
case like this.

The feedback so far is let's think of ways to address those specific
indivisual cases with issues, but if the current criteria works for most
other people, we shouldn't adjust the default criteria for specific
indivisual cases. This should be addressed seperately.

* Questions raised on its implication
Looking at this from the situation in Japan, it may lead to a situation
where some large ISPs may start applying more ASNs for the ease of its
operation, for exapmple, applying for over 10 ASNs, or local CATV
providers connected under group company's ASN may start applying  even
though they are able to operate today without global ASNs.

We may not need to worry about 4bite ASN pool but may have implications
on routing, especially if path validation gets more deployed in the future.

* A suggestion
An idea has been suggested to keep the multihoming criteria but not make
it a must to be multihomed if an applicant can provide justification for
the need for an ASN. There should still be a minimum criteria such as an
applicant has BGP connection with its upstream, to need an ASN. To give
rough guidance to APNIC and NIR hostmasters, give specific example of
needs which has already being identified in the guidelines document.

 e.g.
 It is expected that an applicant's environment of connectivity leads
 to the needs to constantly change upstreams with reasons explained


We have defined IPv6 distribution policy in a similar manner, withough
changing the criteria which applies to most people. Specific cases are
described in the guidelines.

What are the thoughts from the propers and others about this suggestion?


Izumi


*  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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Izumi Okutani  wrote:

> Great to know this Philip.
>
> We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on
> reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
> operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the consensus
> at Policy SIG got reverted.


Wow! as a region outsider; If Policy SIG is similar "in purpose" to what
AFRINIC call the public policy meeting (PPM) then i will say the policy
chair may have been lucky to have gotten away with that decision Izumi ;-)

In the AFRINIC region, we do have situations where there are few people in
the room due to other engagement (a parallel session or people travelling
same day because PPM happen to be on the last day), so it could become a
challenge to determine what number of people in the room would be good
enough to discuss a policy and observe consensus. However since PPM are
announced with prior noticed as defined by PDP we have always ensured to
run the meeting and observe consensus and such decision can only be
reverted on discussion list (last call period)

Cheers!

>
>
>
> On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
> > 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 Lig

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Skeeve Stevens]

I agree with Izumi.

That a policy can be reverted at the AMM when it is passed at Policy SIG is
unacceptable.  It is duplication, redundant and a waste of time.  Policy
should be 'reported' at the AMM, but not discussed or debated, as the
Policy SIG is the appropriate venue for this.


...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 Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Izumi Okutani  wrote:

> Great to know this Philip.
>
> We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on
> reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
> operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the
> consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that
> consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and
> not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.
>
> I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would
> like to raise this again.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Izumi
>
>
>
> On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
> > 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 lea

Re: [sig-policy] Policy SIG session schedule

[Izumi Okutani]

Great to know this Philip.

We had simliar issue last year, where we discussed about the proposal on
reserving a space for DNS anycast, and due to parallel session, some
operators could not attend. It got rediscussed at the AMM and the
consensus at Policy SIG got reverted. I think it's not efficient that
consensus decisions needs to be rediscussed due to parallel sessions and
not everyone could participate at Policy SIG.

I provided input to an APNIC staff after the session last year and would
like to raise this again.


Thanks,
Izumi



On 2015/03/02 12:07, Philip Smith wrote:
> 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
>