In addition to Owen's point, I also wonder about this:
"AND
- advertise the prefixes within 6 months"
Is there a process in place which actually checks this?
If so, will APNIC actually pull back /24 allocations which aren't
advertised within 6 months?
If not - why even include it?
Regards,
Robert
On 5 March 2015 at 12:10, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simply advertising a network doesn’t mean you need the addresses or that
> you’re actually using them in an operational network.
>
> It just means you typed in a BGP anchor statement.
>
> Owen
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:44 , Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
