+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: > > 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 <myama...@gmail.com > <mailto:myama...@gmail.com>> 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 > <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 > aftab.siddi...@gmail.com <> > > Skeeve Stevens > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com <> > > > 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) > d...@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz> > > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
