Draft Agenda for LIR WG at RIPE42

James,

Yes, every point has got consensus in ARIN meeting this week
as well as APNIC. Maybe, Thomas Narten of IPv6 WG chair of ARIN 
will formally report to you soon. Now it is your turn to decide!

Regards,
Takashi Arano

At 07:06 02/04/11, jhma+ripe at mcvax.org wrote:
>Havard Eidnes asked:
> > Can you please send a pointer to the LIR mailing list which points
> > towards the policy which there appers to be consensus on?
>
>Attached is a message posted to the global-v6 list by Takashi Arano following
>the last APNIC meeting.  The ARIN meeting has just finished and I haven't yet
>seen any formal report from that meeting but I am lead to believe that the
>same consensus was reached.
>
>James
>
>Return-Path: owner-global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
>Delivery-Date: Mon Mar 11 13:13:05 2002
>Received: from cumin.apnic.net ([202.12.29.59])by mcvax.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1)id 16kPbs-000NZp-00for jhma at mcvax.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:13:04 +0000
>Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net (hadrian.apnic.net [202.12.29.249])by cumin.apnic.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g2BD79c2016416;Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:07:17 +1000
>Received: from data.staff.apnic.net (data.apnic.net [202.12.29.247])by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13165;Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:11:23 +1000 (EST)
>Received: (from majordom at localhost)by data.staff.apnic.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g2BD5h309508;Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:05:43 +1000 (EST)
>X-Authentication-Warning: data.staff.apnic.net: majordom set sender to owner-global-v6 at lists.apnic.net using -f
>Received: from cumin.apnic.net (cumin.apnic.net [202.12.29.59])by data.staff.apnic.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g2BD5ff09504for <global-v6 at lists.apnic.net>; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:05:41 +1000 (EST)
>Received: from mail.gblx.ad.jp (mail.gblx.ad.jp [203.192.133.6])by cumin.apnic.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g2BD72c2016410for <global-v6 at lists.apnic.net>; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:07:03 +1000
>Received: from TAARANO02.gblx.ad.jp (kujira [203.192.128.6])by mail.gblx.ad.jp (8.10.2+Sun/3.7W00120817) with ESMTP id g2BDBAe00489for <global-v6 at lists.apnic.net>; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:11:10 +0900 (JST)
>Message-Id: <4.3.2-J.20020311220313.053e5088 at mail.gblx.ad.jp>
>X-Sender: tarano at mail.gblx.ad.jp
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2-J
>Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:11:46 +0900
>To: global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
>From: Takashi Arano <arano at gblx.ad.jp>
>Subject: [GLOBAL-V6] Consensus in AP region
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang)
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang)
>Sender: owner-global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Hi,
>
>Policy amendment was proposed in the APNIC Address Policy SIG
>from the global IPv6 policy editorial team and the current
>draft (dated 12/22) with this amendment was supported 
>as AP region consensus.
>
>In the meeting, three issues were identified through efforts
>to summarize continuing discussion in RIPE41 and the global 
>mailing list. Those were;
>
>1) Initial allocation criteria
>2) Do we continue to use HD-Ratio?
>3) Are requirements of LIR's sub-allocation appropriate?
>
>Regarding 1), the editorial team proposed an amendment
>which would replace Section 5.2.1 of the original draft. 
>See the below in this mail.
>
>We spent one and a half hour for discussion.
>During discussion, more issues other than these were raised
>but finally they were withdrawn, considering the priority 
>for moving forward.
>
>To the end, each of the issues was supported by the show of hands.
>More clearly,
>
>Consensus 1) the amendment below was accepted
>Consensus 2) Yes, HD-ratio should be used as the draft shows
>Consensus 3) Yes, requirements in the draft are okay.
>
>Finally, I, as the chair, asked participants for voting
>the whole draft with the amendment and found this reached 
>the consensus of AP region consensus.
>
>I hope quick resolution with good discussion 
>in both ARIN and RIPE meeting (of course as well as in
>the mailing list) would be appreciated.
>
>Please review the following and give any feedback. Thanks.
>
>Regards,
>Takashi Arano
>---------------------------------
>
>
>Start of proposed text
>================
>
>5.2.1.  Initial allocation criteria
>
>In order to reduce address space fragmentation and increase the
>likelyhood that routes can be aggregated, end sites should obtain
>address space from their connectivity providers as opposed to directly
>from RIR/NIRs. Having RIR/NIRs assign address space directly to end
>sites in general is known to lead to unscalable routing, since the
>routes to those end sites will not aggregate. Thus, allocations of
>large address blocks (i.e., much larger than /48s) are made to
>organizations that assign /48s to organizations other than itself, and
>also provide connectivity for those organizations. Specifically:
>
>- Organizations requesting address space must be an LIR. (see Section
>    2.6).
>
>- Organizations requesting address space must not be end sites.
>
>- Organizations requesting address space will provide connectivity for
>    the organizations it has assigned /48s to by advertising such
>    connectivity through the single aggregate allocated to that
>    organization.
>
>- Organizations requesting address space have a plan for assigning
>    address space (e.g., /48s) to other organizations, with the number
>    of such assignments likely to result in at least 200 such
>    assignments over the next two years.
>
>- Organizations who are granted initial allocations, but after two
>    years no longer satisfy the requirements above, are subject to
>    having their allocations revoked.
>
>================
>End proposed text
>
>Note: Section 2.6 defines LIR as follows:
>
>2.6.  Local Internet Registry (LIR)
>
>     A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns
>     address space to the users of the network services that it provides.
>     LIRs are generally ISPs, whose customers are primarily end users and
>     possibly other ISPs.
>
>-------------------------------------------
>
>-
>- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo at lists.apnic.net