How do you see needs basis going away in this wording?
...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service [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 Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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] >> >> Skeeve Stevens >> [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 > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
