Opposed as written.
Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a
case-by-case
basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus
policy development
process.
Owen
On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote:
In addition to Owen's point, I also wonder about this:
AND
- advertise the prefixes within 6 months
Is there a process in place which actually checks this?
If so, will APNIC actually pull back /24 allocations which aren't
advertised within 6 months?
If not - why even include it?
Regards,
How do you see needs basis going away in this wording?
...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
+1… I’m with Dean… Still opposed.
Let’s keep needs basis in place, please. I’m all for removing the requirement
to multihome, but not the requirement to actually need the addresses for an
operational network.
Owen
On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:09 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do think
that there are better ways to address this.
Is there any reason that adding the following to the existing policy would be
unacceptable to you?
…
or an organization which has received an assignment or allocation from
That's actually getting closer to something I could support
On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do
think that there are better ways to address this.
Is there any reason that adding the following to
Owen,
It just feels like nitpicking and moving chairs around. I actually trust
the Secretariat to do the right thing when allocating resources. We're
also talking about a resource where there are over 4.1 billion ASN's still
available... not that it should be a justification to wastage, but it
Dear SIG members
A new version of the proposal “prop-113: Modification in the IPv4
eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
You are encouraged to express your views on
Simply advertising a network doesn’t mean you need the addresses or that you’re
actually using them in an operational network.
It just means you typed in a BGP anchor statement.
Owen
On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:44 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote:
How do you see needs basis going away in
Yes, because it seems to make more sense to you to waste everyones time
discussing something that could be sorted out as much as possible on the
list before we take it to the SIG. Good one.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ;
Owen,
That is almost, but not quite ok.
There may be cases where you have the same reason to do this for a second
or third ASN.
Say I need one for an isolated network in HK, or NZ, or KH with a
completely separate routing policy?
The same criteria should apply for the first and 10th?
Good question David.
Secretariat... can we have those numbers?
...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 ;
In this text, the suggested guidelines have been removed to be replaced
with:
- you have been previous allocated provider independent address space
by APNIC AND
- intend to multi-home in the future
This policy can be reviewed on an annual basis for any impact on the number
of
The only addition to this text was the clarification of demonstrated need.
It is not being removed and will remain in place as below.
Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms must demonstrate
that they are able to use 25% of the requested addresses immediately and
50% within one
14 matches
Mail list logo
