Orbit

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');

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

---

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>

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

---

•          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

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

---

•          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