Hi all, I support this proposal.
This proposal can simplify the fixed IP address application from the customer. When receiving an application for IP address, ask the customer to write a network diagram for SOR in advance , but the virtual servers has increased and the network of the substance is different from the diagram, so it became useless. > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? LIR's responsibility increases... > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? Is it necessary to keep the same level information (network diagram, etc.) as the SOR, after the SOR is abolished? Regards, --- Jun [[email protected] - Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:58:45 +1100]: > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "prop-139-v001: SOR not required" has been sent to > the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 > on Thursday, 16 September 2021. > > https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4 > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing > list before the OPM. > > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important > part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to > express your views on the proposal: > > ? - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > ? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > ??? tell the community about your situation. > ? - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? > ? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > ? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > Information about this proposal is appended below and also available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-139 > > Regards, > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-139-v001: SOR not required > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez ([email protected]) > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > Section 5.2.1 enforces a SOR (Second Opinion Request) process, which is > rarely used. > > It was meant for ensuring that resources aren’t wasted being allocated > unnecessarily, however, this is already the job of the LIRs, and they > may be audited at any point, even if this policy doesn’t exist. > > Further to that, doesn’t make sense that this is being done for > exhausted IPv4 resources, while it has been already avoided for IPv6. > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > Avoiding an unnecessary and rarely used process. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > Other RIRs don’t have this process or it is optional/not used. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > Actual text: > 5.0. Resource Management > ... > Also, NIRs must, wherever possible, apply slow start, assignment window, > and second opinion policies to their own members in a manner consistent > with the way APNIC applies such policies. > ... > > 5.2.1. Assignment window for LIRs > APNIC and NIRs shall apply an assignment window mechanism to help LIRs > understand and comply with APNIC policies and the address management goals. > The assignment window indicates the maximum number of addresses an LIR > may delegate to an end-user without first seeking a "second opinion". If > an LIR wishes to make a delegation that exceeds its delegation window, > the LIR must first submit a second opinion request. > LIRs start with a delegation window of zero, meaning all proposed > delegations must first be approved. > APNIC, or the relevant NIR, will regularly assess the proficiency of LIR > staff in making delegations and seeking second opinions and will review > the size of the assignment window accordingly. As the LIR staff become > more proficient, the size of their assignment window may be raised. > The maximum IPv4 assignment window given to any LIR will be a /19 (8,192 > addresses). > If an LIR's staff appears to become less proficient (for example, due to > the training of new staff or other relevant circumstances) then that > LIR's assignment window may be temporarily reduced. > 5.2.3. IPv4 Delegations to downstream IRs > … > ? Delegations are subject to the LIR's assignment window. Requests for > delegations, which exceed the LIR's assignment window, must first be > referred to APNIC for second opinion approval. > … > > Proposed text: > 5.0. Resource Management > ... > Also, NIRs must, wherever possible, apply slow start policies to their > own members in a manner consistent with the way APNIC applies such > policies. > ... > > > (removed) > 5.2.3. IPv4 Delegations to downstream IRs > … > > (removed) > > … > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > Advantages: > Fulfilling the objective above indicated. > > Disadvantages: > None. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > None. > > > 7. References > ------------- > None. > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
