------------------------------------------------------------
prop-113-v003: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
Skeeve Stevens
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.
7. References
-------------
...Skeeve
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
On Mar 4, 2015, at 20:50 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *The only addition to this text was the clarification of demonstrated need. It is not being removed and will remain in place as below."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."=====------------------------------------------------------------prop-113-v003: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria------------------------------------------------------------Proposer: Aftab SiddiquiSkeeve Stevens1. 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 requirementRIPE: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 delegationsAn organization is eligible if:
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 3190 days inactive
- 3190 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 3 participants
- 2 comments