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:
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
