There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too > radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ > unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue > raised in the problem statement. > > Owen > > > > > On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:07, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > hahahahahahahahahah > > "...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not > here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands > that everyone is present." > > This made my morning. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* > *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service > [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> ; > www.v4now.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from >> hostmaster... >> >> "We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that >> nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. >> >> Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to >> walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, >> please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that >> everyone is present. >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >> So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. >> >> The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to >> people who contact them. >> >> Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy >> sake. >> >> What's the problem statement here? >> >> On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> Hello Dean, >>> >>> We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to >>> apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted >>> the policy wording. >>> >>> However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do >>> contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 >>> or ASN assignment based on the current policy. >>> >>> Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but >>> we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is >>> required. >>> >>> George K >>> >>> On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: >>> >>>> Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: >>>> >>>> Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current >>>> wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential >>>> member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise >>>> have been able to? >>>> >>>> In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters >>>> ever been a barrier to entry? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear SIG members >>>> >>>> The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility >>>> criteria" >>>> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >>>> >>>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in >>>> Fukuoka, >>>> Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. >>>> >>>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing >>>> list >>>> before the meeting. >>>> >>>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an >>>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you >>>> to >>>> express your views on the proposal: >>>> >>>> - Do you support or oppose this proposal? >>>> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If >>>> so, >>>> tell the community about your situation. >>>> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? >>>> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >>>> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more >>>> effective? >>>> >>>> >>>> Information about this proposal is available at: >>>> >>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Masato >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>> prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui >>>> [email protected] >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>>> >>>> Skeeve Stevens >>>> [email protected] >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Problem statement >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility >>>> criteria >>>> and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy >>>> seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and >>>> clearly >>>> defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this >>>> has >>>> created much confusion in interpreting the policy. >>>> >>>> As a result organizations have either provided incorrect >>>> information >>>> to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Objective of policy change >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> >>>> In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are >>>> proposing to >>>> modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN >>>> assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the >>>> organization. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. Situation in other regions >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> >>>> ARIN: >>>> It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order >>>> get ASN >>>> >>>> RIPE: >>>> Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in >>>> discussion >>>> and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 >>>> Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/ >>>> policies/proposals/2014-03 >>>> >>>> LACNIC: >>>> only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing >>>> >>>> AFRINIC: >>>> It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. Proposed policy solution >>>> --------------------------- >>>> >>>> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: >>>> - Is planning to use it within next 6 months >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> >>>> Advantages: >>>> >>>> Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy >>>> will >>>> make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong >>>> information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility. >>>> >>>> Disadvantages: >>>> >>>> No disadvantage. >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. Impact on resource holders >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> >>>> No impact on existing resource holders. >>>> >>>> >>>> 7. References >>>> ------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Dean Pemberton >>>> >>>> Technical Policy Advisor >>>> InternetNZ >>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob) >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. >>>> >>>> >>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>>> * >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> -- >> Dean Pemberton >> >> Technical Policy Advisor >> InternetNZ >> +64 21 920 363 (mob) >> [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> >> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> > -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) [email protected] To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
