On behalf of SAGE-AU, I support this proposal. On 13 Sep 2015 1:24 am, "Masato Yamanishi" <myama...@gmail.com> 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 > 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 > > 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 > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > 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
