Hi Dean This proposal seems to advocates two things: > > The removal of any requirement for organisations to be multihomed >
Yes, > The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation. > Not exactly. > > The proposed wording states: > > Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations > An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or > inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates > a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months. > > Can the authors clarify that their intended state is one where an LIR > is only required to demonstrate a plan to advertise the addresses > rather than demonstrate an actual need for them? > Let me give you the example from current policy text: Current Section 3.3 para 2: 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 year. It means all LIRs who already got the prefixes under this policy used 50% of the address space within an year? Because thats what they said while submitting the application. Right? I don't see any reason to force LIR to provide justification that how they will use the prefixes with in 3 months or an year and now we are not talking about /18s /17s any more. Or do you want to continue with fabricated demonstrated need :) Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
