Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. 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 available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
Regards
Masato
------------------------------------------------------------ prop-113-v001: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria ------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
1. Problem statement -------------------- The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple eligibility criteria and applicant must meet one 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 inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages -----------------------------
Advantages:
Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong or fabricated multi-homing information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
Disadvantages:
There is no known disadvantage of this proposal.
6. Impact on resource holders -----------------------------
No impact on existing resource holders.
7. References -------------

Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to?
In other words had the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry?
I'll also be asking the same question of the other similar policy.
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. 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 available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
Regards
Masato
prop-113-v001: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');
Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com');
- Problem statement
The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple eligibility criteria and applicant must meet one 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.
- Objective of policy change
In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text of section 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.
- Proposed policy solution
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong or fabricated multi-homing information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
Disadvantages:
There is no known disadvantage of this proposal.
- Impact on resource holders
No impact on existing resource holders.
- References

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2/3/15 5:56 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
support.
- -gaurab

I support this policy change as written.
Owen
On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. 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 available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113>
Regards
Masato
prop-113-v001: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
- Problem statement
The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple eligibility criteria and applicant must meet one 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.
- Objective of policy change
In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text of section 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.
- Proposed policy solution
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong or fabricated multi-homing information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
Disadvantages:
There is no known disadvantage of this proposal.
- Impact on resource holders
No impact on existing resource holders.
- References
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

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Support.

Dear Colleagues,
Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without any negative comment. Isn't there any concern or negative comment?
Dean> Can you express your view after clarification?
Aflab and Skeeve> If prop-113 will reach consensus but prop-114 will not, is it acceptable initial approach to implement only prop-113? Or, these are inseparable policies?
Regards, Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
2015-02-03 22:18 GMT-06:00 Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Support.
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
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

This proposal seems to advocates two things:
The removal of any requirement for organisations to be multihomed The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation.
The proposed wording states:
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
Can the authors clarify that their intended state is one where an LIR is only required to demonstrate a plan to advertise the addresses rather than demonstrate an actual need for them?
Dean -- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without any negative comment. Isn't there any concern or negative comment?
Dean> Can you express your view after clarification?
Aflab and Skeeve> If prop-113 will reach consensus but prop-114 will not, is it acceptable initial approach to implement only prop-113? Or, these are inseparable policies?
Regards, Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
2015-02-03 22:18 GMT-06:00 Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Support.
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
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

Hi Dean
This proposal seems to advocates two things:
The removal of any requirement for organisations to be multihomed
Yes,
The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation.
Not exactly.
The proposed wording states:
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
Can the authors clarify that their intended state is one where an LIR is only required to demonstrate a plan to advertise the addresses rather than demonstrate an actual need for them?
Let me give you the example from current policy text:
Current Section 3.3 para 2: 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.
It means all LIRs who already got the prefixes under this policy used 50% of the address space within an year? Because thats what they said while submitting the application. Right?
I don't see any reason to force LIR to provide justification that how they will use the prefixes with in 3 months or an year and now we are not talking about /18s /17s any more. Or do you want to continue with fabricated demonstrated need :)
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui.

-- Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation.
Not exactly.
Yes exactly - you go on to say just that below.
I don't see any reason to force LIR to provide justification that how they will use the prefixes with in 3 months or an year and now we are not talking about /18s /17s any more.
This statement clearly shows that you are in favour of, and that this policy effectively removes demonstrated need from IPv4 allocations.
Dean

Actually, after seeing the clarifications provided to Dean, I now oppose this proposal as written.
Owen
On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:21 , Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without any negative comment. Isn't there any concern or negative comment?
Dean> Can you express your view after clarification?
Aflab and Skeeve> If prop-113 will reach consensus but prop-114 will not, is it acceptable initial approach to implement only prop-113? Or, these are inseparable policies?
Regards, Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
2015-02-03 22:18 GMT-06:00 Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev@dcs1.biz mailto:sanjeev@dcs1.biz>:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com mailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Support.
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 tel:%2B65%2098551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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

Personally I support it.
On 3 February 2015 at 23:26, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. 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 available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
Regards
Masato
prop-113-v001: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
- Problem statement
The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple eligibility criteria and applicant must meet one 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.
- Objective of policy change
In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text of section 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.
- Proposed policy solution
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong or fabricated multi-homing information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
Disadvantages:
There is no known disadvantage of this proposal.
- Impact on resource holders
No impact on existing resource holders.
- References
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

I do not support this proposal as currently written, on the basis that there is currently insufficient detail provided to convincingly argue for the change of allocation criteria. Although I moved the removal of multi-homing for IPv6 PI allocations, I believe that the critical shortage of IPv4 addresses requires different and more stringent arguments than those used for IPv6.
I would though like to ask the community what I believe are some related questions:
Does the Policy SIG believe that a company which is *not* an ISP (e.g. a retail enterprise) but requires 200-300 addresses (for some "genuine" reason, whatever that might be) can/should be treated as an LIR by APNIC under its current IPv4 policy (i.e. by section 3.1), or is the only way for that company to be allocated APNIC addresses is under the (current) Section 3.3 (small multihoming)?
If a company can be treated like an LIR, and obtain addresses under section 3.1, then when would you use section 3.3? (And if there were no need to use section 3.3, then presumably you wouldn't need this proposal.)
Otherwise, assuming that ISPs have a limited ability to assign IPv4 addresses because of global exhaustion, imagine that (sooner or later) ISPs might not be willing to allocate a "large" provider assigned address block like a /24 to such a company. If the only option for the company were to approach APNIC, and the company is expected to obtain addresses under section 3.3, but the company only wishes to deal with one ISP (for some commercial reason, for example), then it seems the company would not be able to obtain the addresses it needs because of the multihoming requirement.
If that is a valid scenario, and the community believes that such a company should have access to some addresses from APNIC, then I believe a more developed form of this proposal would be required.
Regards,
David Woodgate
On 4/02/2015 4:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. 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 available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
Regards
Masato
prop-113-v001: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
- Problem statement
The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple eligibility criteria and applicant must meet one 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.
- Objective of policy change
In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text of section 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.
- Proposed policy solution
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong or fabricated multi-homing information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
Disadvantages:
There is no known disadvantage of this proposal.
- Impact on resource holders
No impact on existing resource holders.
- References
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
Activity Summary
- 3135 days inactive
- 3135 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 8 participants
- 11 comments