Is it not possible to minimize this unsolicited incoming traffic ? if not
then agree on Skeeve 1+
Regards // Jahangir
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens <
ske...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
> Given Geoff makes the bogon report and he is the proposer, I am pretty
> sure he
5. Explain the advantages of the proposal
-
- It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier.
I think most of LIRs control traffic for present initial allocation .
- It is possible to use current reserved blocks efficiently.
True .
Support this by considering the issue "unsolicited traffic" also thanks for
sharing the reference.
Regards // Jahangir
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Aftab Siddiqui
wrote:
> In favour of this proposal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Skeeve St
Hi Randy and Adam,
Agree with both of you but it would be more meaningful if someone acts as
moderator on individual session who can interact with panelist or presenter
and remote audience.
I would like to thanks Elvis's idea "on-site registration to the
conference, an automatic registration for
>
> FYI, one of APNIC staff (typically GGM) and also one of chairs (typically
> me) is doing this role in each sessions.
> I don't think we will need more volunteers for this role, but if you have
> any problem or any good idea to improve it,
> please let us know.
>
> Rgs,
&
I also support revision of the proposal.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Masato Yamanishi <
myama...@japan-telecom.com> wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-110: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast
> to support DNS Infrastructure" has been sent to the Policy SIG for rev
5. Explain the advantages of the proposal
-
- It is possible to utilize address blocks which is potentially
unused into the future.
- It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier.
- Organizations can design their IPv6 networks more fle
Personally, I also faced the same complexity about the "mandatory
multi-homing requirement" when i tried to apply for ASN of new ISP.
I support this by considering "organizations are not tempted to provide
wrong information " . Make simple and authenticate information .
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at
Andy1+, and support this proposal . Just keep simple, authenticate and
accountable .
Regards / Jahangir
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
> I support this proposal.
>
> I support it because it makes it slightly easier for organisations in
> developing regions to get a
I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but
organization should share their future plan of multi-homing to get ASN.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Masato Yamanishi
wrote:
> Dear colleagues
>
> Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria,
> reache
Hi ,
Actually i'm also thinking why this is important ? or why we are trying to
mapping port with addressing specially in IPv4? I think their are so many
reasons not support this proposal specially by considering technical
feasibility and scalability .
Just one question for my personal understand
Thanks Adam for sharing this good news also special thanks to policy
contributors . This was indeed needed .
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Adam Gosling wrote:
> _
>
> Implementation of prop-113 & prop-114
> __
Hi all ,
I also agree with Paul Rendek and Bertrand comments "it's not efficient
having two separate databases would solve this issue" .
I also support Gaurab’s idea to tag the authoritative of account holder.
Besides i would like to add one point with Gaurab's idea ;* Can we send
verification me
Thanks Aftab for your comments and information .
We already know the importance of Whois database accuracy specially the
exchange of information for cyber security mitigation . if community have
mixed comments then we can execute this as pilot project specially on IRT
object or single country .
dam
>
>
> ___
> Adam Gosling
> Internet Policy Development Consultant, APNIC
> e: a...@apnic.net
> p: +61 7 3858 3142
> m: +61 421 456 243
> t: @bout_policy
> ___
Hi Adam and all ,
I think some rules should be added for voting eligibility to avoid fraud
(like NRO voting eligibility).
Can you please clear up the question how to identify the individuals
entitlement who are previously registered APNIC conference and eligible on
site voting like APNIC 43 meeti
Dear all ,
I'm latecomer of the race to get IPv4 . So as a latecomer of the
community, may i have a last option or opportunity to get resources ?
According to transfer statistics and member of this community, we are
responsible for maintaining the number resources policy and update when
needed f
Hi Masato ,
I support this prop-116-v002
*Regards / Jahangir *On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi <
myama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Jahangir,
>
> So, do you support prop-116-v002 as written or oppose?
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
>
> 2016-10-02
ts of current
> or previous APNIC conferences.
> Since we don't need to maintain full list of eligible voters, I believe it
> is enough.
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
>
> 2016-09-23 23:46 GMT+09:00 Jahangir Hossain :
>
>> Hi Adam and all ,
>>
>> I thin
) .
*Regards / Jahangir *
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jahangir Hossain
wrote:
> Hi Masato ,
>
> I support this prop-116-v002
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Regards / Jahangir *
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jahang
Great Randy for sharing the image :)
Thank you | Jahangir
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > In addition, we need to consider a balance between openness and equality.
>
>
>
> or my version
>
>
>
> randy
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
Hi everyone ,
I have a simple question for clarification . How 103/8 block is
returned to APNIC which already assigned to members ?
*Regards / Jahangir*
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Sumon Ahmed Sabir
wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Part of prop-117: "Returned IPv4 address management and
> www.apnic.net
>
> ___
>
>
>
> Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: * on behalf of Jahangir
> Hossain
> *Date: *Tuesday
In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an end date".
What about the end date ? Who will define the end ? Is it define by
requester who are interest to temporary transfer resource to receiver ?
*Regards / Jahangir *
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:16 PM, chku wrote:
> Dear SIG
I again put my support this proposal as i have done before .
*Regards / Jahangir *
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:12 PM, chku wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4
> addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to the Policy SIG for
>
I will support the original form of this policy which has included
Prohibit transfer within 2 years including M&A cases .
I also believe the original form of this policy will keep the member
benefits and prompt IPv6 development .
*Regards / Jahangir HossainBD Link Communications
Ltd.
t with your respective communities, where applicable.
*Regards / *
*Jahangir Hossain*
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailm
Dear all,
I agree with Paul statement .“The Policy SIG charter is to develop
policies which relate to the management and use of Internet address
resources within the Asia Pacific region".
if service related to address is concern then it can be like that " The
Policy SIG charter is to develop po
Congratulations to Anupam da for the new ERA .
Regards /
Md. Jahangir Hossain
Member, Board of Trustees
Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jrjahangir/
https://internetsociety.org.bd/
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 11:07 AM Sayda kamrun Jahan Ripa <
kamrunj
Hi,
I support this proposal.
Regards/Jahangir
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 6:24 AM Bertrand Cherrier
wrote:
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-150: ROA/whois object with Private, Reserved and
> Unallocated
> (reserved/available) Origin ASN" has been sent to the Policy SIG for
> review.
>
>
I would like to remind a couple of objectives of the present IPv4
delegation policy;
1. This will give the opportunity to get IPv4 delegation in the future
of new startups or SMBs, especially from developing nations.
2. To encourage the implementation of IPv6 growth rate in the APNIC
r
I support this new version.
Also agree with Gaurav Kansal's opinion. We should publish the country-wise
number of historical account holders and the number of IPs owned by each
account holder.
Regards/Jahangir
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:02 AM Gaurav Kansal wrote:
> I would request APNIC Secret
I support this proposal.
Regards/ Jahangir
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 6:25 AM Bertrand Cherrier
wrote:
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-151: Restricting non hierarchical as-set" has been
> sent to
> the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at
I also remain opposed to this proposal and inessential.
if a new IXP is required to announce some content to global routing then
how does this new IXP announce this block /26?
Regards /
Jahangir Hossain
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 5:06 AM Shaila Sharmin
wrote:
> Dear SIG members,
>
&
Hi Aftab,
I understand your point.
My concern is, how do these new/small IXPs announce their hosted content
(LAN) to global routing as they are receiving /26 at the first stage? We
should consider this situation.
Regards /
Jahangir Hossain
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 3:42 PM Aftab Siddiqui
I support this proposal.
Regards /
Jahangir Hossain
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jrjahangir/
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:34 AM Bertrand Cherrier
wrote:
> Dear SIG members,
>
> A new proposal "prop-155-v001: IPv6 PI assignment for associate members"
> has been sent to the
36 matches
Mail list logo
