| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :: back :: |
| Conclusions - LACNIC VII |
|
Analysis of Alternative Information for Initial IPv4 Allocations
|
Christian O´Flaherty, IMPSAT
Introductory Document: http://lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicvii/INFORMACION-ALTERNATIVA.pdf
Presentation available at: http://lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicvii/analisis-inf-alternativa-asignaciones.pdf
|
Arturo Zaldivar.
It is a good proposal to reduce the allocation to a /21, although it is necessary to have clear policies on how to justify an IP address allocation to an organization. We request our users to provide us their network architecture in order to evaluate the justification of their allocation. It is a good policy, but the rules must be very clear when an ISP makes direct address allocations to its clients.
Christian O'Flaherty.
To receive clearer guidelines from LACNIC's staff for the reallocation of IP addresses.
Arturo Zaldivar.
That the ISP be able to participate in the application for IP addresses made by a client in order to support the application before LACNIC.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
The idea that must be behind this is a machine with a public IP address. We must not evaluate whether it is needed or not. If you have a machine, you have the right to a public IP address. The minimum allocation policy that was just approved does not require that the allocations appear on the WHOIS database.
Germán Valdez.
The policy that was just approved is an alternative to the traditional policy of allocating a /20. You apply either one policy or the other. NAT deployment in Latin America is widespread. This policy is oriented more to ISPs than to end users. Within LACNIC we do not promote the use of NAT. We more or less share the opinion of one IP address per machine. We try to be clear with our members that they will not have any problems for receiving additional blocks once they have used their resources with their clients.
Arturo Zaldivar.
I would like to clear the matter of whether as an ISP I must oblige my clients to use NAT. If at LACNIC level it is established that it is not an obligation, I can make the changes with my clients. In exchange I request that there be no problems with additional allocations.
Raúl Echeberría.
There is no policy that states the use of NAT. Faced with this situation, do not force the client to use NAT. There are resources for available for their allocation, and they are allocated based on necessity, if you need resources, they are allocated without any problems. If you consider that it is necessary to make additional allocation policies more flexible, this should be analyzed through the Policy Development Procedure.
Jordi Palet.
I have spoken with many ISPs from several regions and their perception is that RIRs promote the use of NAT. Perhaps a policy or press statement would be useful to clear this matter. We need to provide more information on the matter of not promoting the use of NAT. It would be good that someone who requests IPv4 addresses be allocated equivalent IPv6 space, maybe this could take the form of a policy.
Ariel Herrera.
I have observed that, in order to receive IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, an organization must be an ISP. What is the situation with the companies that are not ISPs? For example, my company, Zona Franca, does not have access to these resources. I agree with the idea that the end user should be able to obtain address space directly from LACNIC. I would like to have an IPv6 block, but these are oriented exclusively to ISPs.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
The problem is that we cannot allocate IPv6 to end users because it is not possible from a technical point of view. In this case, you should present the request to the Provider. It is not technically feasible to allocate IPv6 to end users.
Sebastián Bellagamba.
On the other hand, there are IPv4 address allocations to end users, starting with a /24. In relation to the previous comment (Ariel Herrera), I believe that there is nothing similar for IPv6.
Germán Valdez.
We would have to analyze the type of organization. If Zona Franca provides Internet services to the companies located within the area, it would qualify as an ISP. The ISP criteria used by LACNIC is extremely broad, so that as many companies as possible may qualify for receiving addresses. In the case of organizations that are not ISPs, there are policies for allocating IPv4 addresses to multihomed end users starting at a /24.
|
|
Conclusions.
|
Christian O'Flaherty.
There is interest, the problem exists and we must deal with it. The issue will be taken to the policy mailing list for its further analysis.
|
| |
| :: back :: |
|
|
|
|
