Just to clarify. This still looks to remove needs based allocation and shift that to an "ability to advertise".
Am I missing something here? On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> 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 the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > Please find the text of the proposal below. > > Kind Regards, > > Masato > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > prop-113-v002: Modification in the IPv4 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 APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple > eligibility criteria and applicants must meet one criteria to be > eligible to receive IPv4 resources. One of the criteria dictates > that “an organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed > with provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multi-home > within one month” (section 3.3). > > The policy seems to imply that multi-homing is mandatory even if > there is no use case for the applicant to be multi-homed or even > when there is only one upstream provider available, this has created > much confusion in interpreting this policy. > > As a result organizations have either tempted to provide incorrect > or fabricated multi-homing information to get the IPv4 resources 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 of section 3.3. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ------------------------------------ > > ARIN: > There is no multi-homing requirement > > RIPE: > There is no multi-homing requirement. > > LACNIC: > Applicant can either have multi-homing requirement or interconnect. > > AFRINIC: > There is no multi-homing requirement. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > ------------------------------------ > > Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations > > An organization is eligible if: > > - it is currently multi-homed > > OR, > > - currently utilising provider (ISP) assignment of at least a /24, > > AND > > - intends to be multi-homed > > OR, > > - intends to be multi-homed > > AND > > - advertise the prefixes within 6 months > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ------------------------------------------ > > Advantages: > > Simplifies the process of applying for IPv4 address space for small > delegations and delays the immediate requirement for multi-homing as > determined to be appropriate within the timeframe as detailed in > Section 3.3. > > Disadvantages: > > There is no known disadvantage of this proposal. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------------------- > > No impact on existing resource holders. > > -- -- 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
