I also support this proposal and agree with Andy's comments. Thanks, Andrew
On 13 September 2015 at 15:49, Jahangir Hossain <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy1+, and support this proposal . Just keep simple, authenticate and > accountable . > > > > > Regards / Jahangir > > > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Andy Linton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I support this proposal. >> >> I support it because it makes it slightly easier for organisations in >> developing regions to get a workable allocation of IPv4 address space which >> is provider independent allowing them to change their provider without >> renumbering. >> >> But I don't believe it goes far enough. The criteria should be simply >> that the requesting organisation asks for a block of addresses that they >> intend to connect to the Internet within a short period - I think that one >> month would be fine but I'd happily compromise on that. >> >> The address policy could then be simply: >> >> "When an organisation requests space they are given a /24 of IPv4 space, >> a /48 of IPv6 address space and an ASN. Any larger requests must be >> justified with an address plan." >> >> When we finally really run out of IPv4 space, let the market take over >> and APNIC can register the transactions. >> >> So to be clear, I support this proposal because it moves us in the right >> direction. >> >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria, >>> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the >>> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). >>> >>> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy >>> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list >>> for the final Comment Period. >>> >>> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments >>> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The >>> Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to >>> allow further discussion. >>> >>> If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive >>> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. >>> >>> - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net> >>> - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015 >>> >>> >>> >>> Proposal details >>> ---------------- >>> >>> This is a proposal changes the criteria for IPv4 address requests from >>> end-user organizations considering multihoming. >>> >>> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and >>> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: >>> >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Masato and Sumon >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> prop-113-v003: 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 >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> * 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
