Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[wg-pdr] Re: Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1
Dear All,
The APNIC Secretariat had the following observations:
“• Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive
– Resource request supportive documentation
– 5.6.1 could be deleted”
Simon and I propose the following draft proposal for it and request your views on the same by 31 July.
Title of proposal * Documentation
Problem statement:
It has been observed that the Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive in the Resource Request Supportive Document.
Objective of policy change:
The objective of the policy change is to make the policy more simpler and easier for the community to understand and adopt and remove duplication if any.
Situation in other regions:
ARIN: Does not seem to have a definitive document on the same.
Reference Link: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/ https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
RIPE NCC: Does not seem to have a consolidated document
Reference Link: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0
LACNIC: mentions
2.3.2.5.Documentation
Internet Registries shall use the IPv4 addresses they have been allocated in an efficient manner. To this end, IRs shall document the justification for each IPv4 address assignment. At the request of LACNIC, the corresponding IR shall make this information available. LACNIC shall not make complementary allocations to those Internet Registries that have not properly documented the use of the blocks already allocated. In these cases, existing allocations may also be reviewed.
The documentation LACNIC may require includes:
• Engineering plans.
• Subnetting and aggregation plan.
• Description of network topology.
• Description of network routing plans.
• Receipts documenting investments (equipment).
• Other relevant documents
Reference Link: https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf
AFRINIC: Policy document mentions
5.2.3 Documentation
In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Reference Link: https://afrinic.net/policy/manual https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
Proposed policy solution:
To avoid duplication, the proposal is to remove 5.6.1 and include any additional requirements into 5.6.
Currently the two sections are as follows:
Section 5.6. General requirements
All requests for address space must be supported by documentation describing:
* The network infrastructure of the organization making the request, * Any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), * Previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and * The intended use for the address space requested.
In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, as outlined below.
Section 5.6.1. Documentation states
To properly evaluate requests, IRs must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. This documentation may include:
* Network engineering plans * Subnetting plans * Descriptions of network topology * Descriptions of network routing plans * Equipment invoices and purchase orders * Other relevant documents
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Ref link: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#5.6.-General-requirements-f...
What we propose is:
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. Further based on request the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Explain the advantages of the proposal?
The advantage of the proposal is that it removes duplication and makes the document more precise.
Explain the disadvantages of the proposal:
There are no disadvantages.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Sent: 15 July 2021 11:00 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Re: OPM is approaching - Need to speed up the process
Dear Amrita,
Thanks so much for such a detailed summary to date.
Really appreciate the work done thus far by all, and I would kindly ask all the WG members to please take active interest in this and contribute to the discussion.
For now, we suggest to please park the "Operational Concern 3" but keep working on the others. Secretariat will provide more info on this soon.
Hope to see a few proposals from this WG for APNIC 52. Deadline to submit proposals is 06 August 2021.
Best Regards, Sunny
On 15/07/2021 2:11 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote:
Dear Working Group Members,
As already shared earlier we need to complete our work, come up with proposals if any before the Sept OPM. We just have 3 weeks to submit any proposal.
I know each of you are busy with you day jobs, but may I please request you revisit the 5 operational concerns out of 6 the secretariat had shared and share your comments.
Some comment/ query had already come in a few of the concerns (like 2, 5 and 6) while none for (3,4). For your easy reference am listing them below with the concerns/status as of today and my queries to all of you. Looking forward to your revert.
Operational concern - 2
1. Address space – Section 2.2 – There is confusion about whether Allocated address space can be used for subdelegating to customers, as well as be assigned in their own network infrastructure. 2. The only direct indication in the policy that LIRs may assign space to themselves for their own infrastructure is in the definition of an LIR at 2.1.3. 3. This is somewhat contradicted by the definition of Delegated address space at 2.2.1. which implies that Assignments are for an organization’s own infrastructure and Allocations are for subsequent delegation to customers.
Status as on 15 July: Adam, Anupam and Jordi had commented on the concern and Adam and Anupam had suggested working on a proposal.
Amrita’s comments: I have requested Adam and Anupam if they can come up with a proposal on the same.In case anyone wants to join please feel free to collaborate with them
Operational concern - 3
1. Recovery of unused historical resources – Section 4.2.1 – Current policy text says that the Secretariat will “contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998” and try to recover them for future delegation. Should the Secretariat continue this practice and contact historical resource holders who have not routed their resources for an extended period of time? 2. The text in Prop-017 proposes that the Secretariat should try and recover un-routed historical space that has not been used for “a reasonable period of time”. 3. Whether this is meant to be an ongoing process is not clear from the proposal itself. However, it does say “After this project is complete, the process of monitoring the "used" status of APNIC address blocks may be operationalised, so that this status information is available for use in cases of membership closure, transfer or dispute.”
Status as on 15 July: Have not seen any comments on concern 3
Amrita’s Question to WG: Do you think this issue is a concern and how do you want to proceed on it?
Operational concern - 4
1. Assignment window for LIRs – Section 5.2.1 – The Secretariat rarely receives SORs (second opinion requests) anymore. Is this process obsolete? 2. This policy is implemented through a process called Second Opinion Request (SOR), where a new resource holder must send network information for their customer network and their proposed assignment size for review and approval by APNIC Hostmasters. 3. To help LIRs understand and comply with APNIC policies and the address management goals. 4. For IPv4 the policy is probably obsolete and irrelevant. For IPv6 the policy was recently obsoleted and is no longer active with the implementation of Prop-033. (obsoleted from the policy and moved to IPv6 Guidelines.)
Status as on 15 July: Have not seen any comments on concern 4
Amrita’s Question to WG: Do you think this issue is a concern and how do you want to proceed on it?
Operational concern - 5
1. Experimental allocations policy – Section 5.7 – 2. Can the Secretariat delegate IPv4 resources from last /8 under the Experimental allocations policy? • The policy predates the PDP. 3. The Experimental Allocations Policy https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fresources&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094666109%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8TfrC09JdKGQvLFkONNMLSKIX6SZi7k9Hj33PPuDzHg%3D&reserved=0 was first published 29 December 2003 as a document apnic-109-v001 https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fftp.apnic.net%2Fapnic%2Farchive%2Fapnic-109-v001.txt&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094676096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=83hrs3ysiiPsSRRG%2BOK67IhwI4Xs8EF1jBxN%2FvepFvk%3D&reserved=0 . 4. There have been no proposed changes to this policy since the introduction of the PDP.
Status as on 15 July: Anupam had made a comment on the same and asked secretariat for information on experimental allocations, which the secretariat reverted on.
Amrita’s Question to WG: How do you want to proceed on Operational concern 5?
Operational concern - 6
1. Providing ASN to customer – Section 12.4 – Where an LIR has requested an ASN for their customer and the customer ceases to receive service from the LIR or returns the ASN for any reason, can that AS number be the subject of a transfer? 2. This reflects the long-standing policy practice where a resource is delegated for immediate use and if it is no longer needed it should be returned to the issuing registry. As the ASN is no longer being used by the LIRs customer it is no longer being used for the purpose it was assigned and must be returned. 3. Section 12.4, here it explains that assignments to organizations that will provide the ASN to one of its customers are subject to additional terms. These include: “Any ASNs returned to the requesting organization must then be returned to APNIC or the relevant NIR.” 4. However, the above contradicts with Section 13.0 – ASN Transfers – “For transfers from an APNIC source, the source entity must be the currently registered holder of the resource, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.”
Status as on 15 July: Anupam had commented: This operational concern will require significant policy change by either prohibiting transfer of resources taken though LIR route by an APNIC account holder in Sec. 13.0 or by Including a consent mechanism wherein LIR approval is required for such transfers by including such a possibility in Sec. 12.1.4. He had requested for information from Secretariat on the observations of the secretariat on concerns raised by LIRs, which the secretariat had shared.
Amrita’s Question to WG: How do you want to proceed on Operational concern 6?
Requesting once again, let’s complete the task we had all signed in form. Also, if you feel we should have a Zoom call, pls let us know, will arrange.
Thanks. Looking forward to some vibrant and constructive discussions.
Regards,
Amrita
On 17-Jun-2021, at 6:55 AM, Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in > wrote:
Dear Bertrand: Thank you for providing the clarity on the remit of this group and the need to speed up the discussions if we want to produce some meaningful outcome before next meeting.
Dear Fellow working group members,
An update first. Simon Baroi has agreed to be a Co- Chair of this WG ????
Now to get back to what is ahead of us, lets refer back to the Secretariat Report ( https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F2021.apricot.net%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2FAPSr481%2Fapnic-policy-document-review-report.pdf&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094676096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=7bGnvfe5goYoq7R5555H2flixkafZ0VMANJvhNdwhU0%3D&reserved=0 https://2021.apricot.net/assets/files/APSr481/apnic-policy-document-review-r... ) and look at the operational concerns. I have been told that there is some development expected in the Operational Concern 1 (slide 12) so we need not look into that, at the moment.
Lets begin with Slide 13 Operational Concern 2
“Address space –
Section 2.2 – There is confusion about whether Allocated address space can be used for subdelegating to customers, as well as be assigned in their own network infrastructure.
• The only direct indication in the policy that LIRs may assign space to themselves for their own infrastructure is in the definition of an LIR at 2.1.3.
• This is somewhat contradicted by the definition of Delegated address space at 2.2.1. which implies that Assignments are for an organization’s own infrastructure and Allocations are for subsequent delegation to customers.”
Any comments or inputs on this one?
Regards
Amrita
From: Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc > Sent: 15 June 2021 11:27 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] OPM is approaching
Hello everyone,
I'm glad to see you all working together to achieve the same goal.
This working group has to come up with a proposal for the OPM at APNIC 52
The call for proposal will be open on July 5th with the deadline on August 6th, so it leaves about 8 weeks
To gain in clarity, it's better to have multiple proposals than only one with all the modifications in it.
To resolve the identified issues, the proposals have to address the observations and operational concerns.
You have to focus on the document and avoid talks that are out of scope, but keep track of this other things, they will lead to new props :-)
A quick clarification, it's not Sunny's report, it's the Secretariat's report.
Keep the good work going !
Regards, ______________________________ Bertrand Cherrier
Administration systèmes, R&D
-- Micro Logic Systems mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc b.cherrier@micrologic.nc https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mls.nc%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094686090%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=gO%2BhOjT3jzVfRtLhtH3UU%2FTk%2BsnKYOGn8MK%2FVNTGMMU%3D&reserved=0 https://www.mls.nc
_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
Dear All,
As there have not been any comments on our draft proposal related to observation of the Policy document with respect to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1, we will go ahead and submit the same.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com Sent: 27 July 2021 08:59 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi' sunny@apnic.net Subject: RE: [wg-pdr] Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1 Importance: High
Dear All,
The APNIC Secretariat had the following observations:
“• Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive
– Resource request supportive documentation
– 5.6.1 could be deleted”
Simon and I propose the following draft proposal for it and request your views on the same by 31 July.
Title of proposal * Documentation
Problem statement:
It has been observed that the Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive in the Resource Request Supportive Document.
Objective of policy change:
The objective of the policy change is to make the policy more simpler and easier for the community to understand and adopt and remove duplication if any.
Situation in other regions:
ARIN: Does not seem to have a definitive document on the same.
Reference Link: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/ https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
RIPE NCC: Does not seem to have a consolidated document
Reference Link: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0
LACNIC: mentions
2.3.2.5.Documentation
Internet Registries shall use the IPv4 addresses they have been allocated in an efficient manner. To this end, IRs shall document the justification for each IPv4 address assignment. At the request of LACNIC, the corresponding IR shall make this information available. LACNIC shall not make complementary allocations to those Internet Registries that have not properly documented the use of the blocks already allocated. In these cases, existing allocations may also be reviewed.
The documentation LACNIC may require includes:
• Engineering plans.
• Subnetting and aggregation plan.
• Description of network topology.
• Description of network routing plans.
• Receipts documenting investments (equipment).
• Other relevant documents
Reference Link: https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf
AFRINIC: Policy document mentions
5.2.3 Documentation
In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Reference Link: https://afrinic.net/policy/manual https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
Proposed policy solution:
To avoid duplication, the proposal is to remove 5.6.1 and include any additional requirements into 5.6.
Currently the two sections are as follows:
Section 5.6. General requirements
All requests for address space must be supported by documentation describing:
* The network infrastructure of the organization making the request, * Any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), * Previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and * The intended use for the address space requested.
In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, as outlined below.
Section 5.6.1. Documentation states
To properly evaluate requests, IRs must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. This documentation may include:
* Network engineering plans * Subnetting plans * Descriptions of network topology * Descriptions of network routing plans * Equipment invoices and purchase orders * Other relevant documents
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Ref link: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#5.6.-General-requirements-f...
What we propose is:
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. Further based on request the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Explain the advantages of the proposal?
The advantage of the proposal is that it removes duplication and makes the document more precise.
Explain the disadvantages of the proposal:
There are no disadvantages.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > Sent: 15 July 2021 11:00 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Re: OPM is approaching - Need to speed up the process
Dear Amrita,
Thanks so much for such a detailed summary to date.
Really appreciate the work done thus far by all, and I would kindly ask all the WG members to please take active interest in this and contribute to the discussion.
For now, we suggest to please park the "Operational Concern 3" but keep working on the others. Secretariat will provide more info on this soon.
Hope to see a few proposals from this WG for APNIC 52. Deadline to submit proposals is 06 August 2021.
Best Regards, Sunny
On 15/07/2021 2:11 pm, Amrita Choudhury wrote:
Dear Working Group Members,
As already shared earlier we need to complete our work, come up with proposals if any before the Sept OPM. We just have 3 weeks to submit any proposal.
I know each of you are busy with you day jobs, but may I please request you revisit the 5 operational concerns out of 6 the secretariat had shared and share your comments.
Some comment/ query had already come in a few of the concerns (like 2, 5 and 6) while none for (3,4). For your easy reference am listing them below with the concerns/status as of today and my queries to all of you. Looking forward to your revert.
Operational concern - 2
1. Address space – Section 2.2 – There is confusion about whether Allocated address space can be used for subdelegating to customers, as well as be assigned in their own network infrastructure. 2. The only direct indication in the policy that LIRs may assign space to themselves for their own infrastructure is in the definition of an LIR at 2.1.3. 3. This is somewhat contradicted by the definition of Delegated address space at 2.2.1. which implies that Assignments are for an organization’s own infrastructure and Allocations are for subsequent delegation to customers.
Status as on 15 July: Adam, Anupam and Jordi had commented on the concern and Adam and Anupam had suggested working on a proposal.
Amrita’s comments: I have requested Adam and Anupam if they can come up with a proposal on the same.In case anyone wants to join please feel free to collaborate with them
Operational concern - 3
1. Recovery of unused historical resources – Section 4.2.1 – Current policy text says that the Secretariat will “contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998” and try to recover them for future delegation. Should the Secretariat continue this practice and contact historical resource holders who have not routed their resources for an extended period of time? 2. The text in Prop-017 proposes that the Secretariat should try and recover un-routed historical space that has not been used for “a reasonable period of time”. 3. Whether this is meant to be an ongoing process is not clear from the proposal itself. However, it does say “After this project is complete, the process of monitoring the "used" status of APNIC address blocks may be operationalised, so that this status information is available for use in cases of membership closure, transfer or dispute.”
Status as on 15 July: Have not seen any comments on concern 3
Amrita’s Question to WG: Do you think this issue is a concern and how do you want to proceed on it?
Operational concern - 4
1. Assignment window for LIRs – Section 5.2.1 – The Secretariat rarely receives SORs (second opinion requests) anymore. Is this process obsolete? 2. This policy is implemented through a process called Second Opinion Request (SOR), where a new resource holder must send network information for their customer network and their proposed assignment size for review and approval by APNIC Hostmasters. 3. To help LIRs understand and comply with APNIC policies and the address management goals. 4. For IPv4 the policy is probably obsolete and irrelevant. For IPv6 the policy was recently obsoleted and is no longer active with the implementation of Prop-033. (obsoleted from the policy and moved to IPv6 Guidelines.)
Status as on 15 July: Have not seen any comments on concern 4
Amrita’s Question to WG: Do you think this issue is a concern and how do you want to proceed on it?
Operational concern - 5
1. Experimental allocations policy – Section 5.7 – 2. Can the Secretariat delegate IPv4 resources from last /8 under the Experimental allocations policy? • The policy predates the PDP. 3. The Experimental Allocations Policy https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fresources&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094666109%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8TfrC09JdKGQvLFkONNMLSKIX6SZi7k9Hj33PPuDzHg%3D&reserved=0 was first published 29 December 2003 as a document apnic-109-v001 https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fftp.apnic.net%2Fapnic%2Farchive%2Fapnic-109-v001.txt&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094676096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=83hrs3ysiiPsSRRG%2BOK67IhwI4Xs8EF1jBxN%2FvepFvk%3D&reserved=0 . 4. There have been no proposed changes to this policy since the introduction of the PDP.
Status as on 15 July: Anupam had made a comment on the same and asked secretariat for information on experimental allocations, which the secretariat reverted on.
Amrita’s Question to WG: How do you want to proceed on Operational concern 5?
Operational concern - 6
1. Providing ASN to customer – Section 12.4 – Where an LIR has requested an ASN for their customer and the customer ceases to receive service from the LIR or returns the ASN for any reason, can that AS number be the subject of a transfer? 2. This reflects the long-standing policy practice where a resource is delegated for immediate use and if it is no longer needed it should be returned to the issuing registry. As the ASN is no longer being used by the LIRs customer it is no longer being used for the purpose it was assigned and must be returned. 3. Section 12.4, here it explains that assignments to organizations that will provide the ASN to one of its customers are subject to additional terms. These include: “Any ASNs returned to the requesting organization must then be returned to APNIC or the relevant NIR.” 4. However, the above contradicts with Section 13.0 – ASN Transfers – “For transfers from an APNIC source, the source entity must be the currently registered holder of the resource, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.”
Status as on 15 July: Anupam had commented: This operational concern will require significant policy change by either prohibiting transfer of resources taken though LIR route by an APNIC account holder in Sec. 13.0 or by Including a consent mechanism wherein LIR approval is required for such transfers by including such a possibility in Sec. 12.1.4. He had requested for information from Secretariat on the observations of the secretariat on concerns raised by LIRs, which the secretariat had shared.
Amrita’s Question to WG: How do you want to proceed on Operational concern 6?
Requesting once again, let’s complete the task we had all signed in form. Also, if you feel we should have a Zoom call, pls let us know, will arrange.
Thanks. Looking forward to some vibrant and constructive discussions.
Regards,
Amrita
On 17-Jun-2021, at 6:55 AM, Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in mailto:amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in > wrote:
Dear Bertrand: Thank you for providing the clarity on the remit of this group and the need to speed up the discussions if we want to produce some meaningful outcome before next meeting.
Dear Fellow working group members,
An update first. Simon Baroi has agreed to be a Co- Chair of this WG ????
Now to get back to what is ahead of us, lets refer back to the Secretariat Report ( https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F2021.apricot.net%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2FAPSr481%2Fapnic-policy-document-review-report.pdf&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094676096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=7bGnvfe5goYoq7R5555H2flixkafZ0VMANJvhNdwhU0%3D&reserved=0 https://2021.apricot.net/assets/files/APSr481/apnic-policy-document-review-r... ) and look at the operational concerns. I have been told that there is some development expected in the Operational Concern 1 (slide 12) so we need not look into that, at the moment.
Lets begin with Slide 13 Operational Concern 2
“Address space –
Section 2.2 – There is confusion about whether Allocated address space can be used for subdelegating to customers, as well as be assigned in their own network infrastructure.
• The only direct indication in the policy that LIRs may assign space to themselves for their own infrastructure is in the definition of an LIR at 2.1.3.
• This is somewhat contradicted by the definition of Delegated address space at 2.2.1. which implies that Assignments are for an organization’s own infrastructure and Allocations are for subsequent delegation to customers.”
Any comments or inputs on this one?
Regards
Amrita
From: Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc > Sent: 15 June 2021 11:27 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] OPM is approaching
Hello everyone,
I'm glad to see you all working together to achieve the same goal.
This working group has to come up with a proposal for the OPM at APNIC 52
The call for proposal will be open on July 5th with the deadline on August 6th, so it leaves about 8 weeks
To gain in clarity, it's better to have multiple proposals than only one with all the modifications in it.
To resolve the identified issues, the proposals have to address the observations and operational concerns.
You have to focus on the document and avoid talks that are out of scope, but keep track of this other things, they will lead to new props :-)
A quick clarification, it's not Sunny's report, it's the Secretariat's report.
Keep the good work going !
Regards, ______________________________ Bertrand Cherrier
Administration systèmes, R&D
-- Micro Logic Systems mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc b.cherrier@micrologic.nc https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mls.nc%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C18770c64cf1340090e9f08d94746acf8%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637619192094686090%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=gO%2BhOjT3jzVfRtLhtH3UU%2FTk%2BsnKYOGn8MK%2FVNTGMMU%3D&reserved=0 https://www.mls.nc
_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
Hi Amrita,
I also fully support this proposal, please find bellow my remarks.
Typo from "Objective of policy change:" more simpler (or more simple)
Having 5.6 in one single block is "hard to read" If someone, a native English speaking person, could please check this sentence : "Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment [...]" it doesn't sound good to me (but then again, I'm french :p )
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans.
Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Best Regards,
Le 02/08/2021 à 01:58, Amrita Choudhury a écrit :
Dear All,
As there have not been any comments on our draft proposal related to observation of the Policy document with respect to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1, we will go ahead and submit the same.
Regards,
Amrita
*From:*Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com *Sent:* 27 July 2021 08:59 *To:* wg-pdr@apnic.net *Cc:* 'Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi' sunny@apnic.net *Subject:* RE: [wg-pdr] Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1 *Importance:* High
Dear All,
The APNIC Secretariat had the following observations:
/“• Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive/
/ – Resource request supportive documentation/
/ – 5.6.1 could be deleted”/
Simon and I propose the following draft proposal for it and _request your views on the same by 31 July._
*Title of proposal** Documentation
*Problem statement: *
It has been observed that the Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive in the Resource Request Supportive Document.
*Objective of policy change:***
The objective of the policy change is to make the policy more simpler and easier for the community to understand and adopt and remove duplication if any.
*Situation in other regions:***
**
ARIN: Does not seem to have a definitive document on the same.
Reference Link: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/ https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
RIPE NCC: Does not seem to have a consolidated document
Reference Link: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0
LACNIC: mentions
/2.3.2.5.Documentation /
/Internet Registries shall use the IPv4 addresses they have been allocated in an efficient manner. To this end, IRs shall document the justification for each IPv4 address assignment. At the request of LACNIC, the corresponding IR shall make this information available. LACNIC shall not make complementary allocations to those Internet Registries that have not properly documented the use of the blocks already allocated. In these cases, existing allocations may also be reviewed. /
/The documentation LACNIC may require includes: /
/• Engineering plans. /
/• Subnetting and aggregation plan. /
/• Description of network topology. /
/• Description of network routing plans. /
/• Receipts documenting investments (equipment). /
/• Other relevant documents/
Reference Link: https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf
AFRINIC: Policy document mentions
/5.2.3 Documentation/**
/In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable./
Reference Link: https://afrinic.net/policy/manual https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
*Proposed policy solution:***
To avoid duplication, the proposal is to remove 5.6.1 and include any additional requirements into 5.6.
*Currently the two sections are as follows:*
/Section /*/5.6. General requirements /*//
/All requests for address space must be supported by documentation describing:/
- /The network infrastructure of the organization making the request,/
- /Any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space),/
- /Previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and/
- /The intended use for the address space requested./
/In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, as outlined below./
*/Section 5.6.1. Documentation states/**//*
/To properly evaluate requests, IRs must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. This documentation may include:///
- /Network engineering plans/
- /Subnetting plans/
- /Descriptions of network topology/
- /Descriptions of network routing plans/
- /Equipment invoices and purchase orders/
- /Other relevant documents/
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Ref link: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#5.6.-General-requirements-f... https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#5.6.-General-requirements-for-requests
**
*What we propose is:***
/5.6 General Requirements:/
/In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. Further based on request the following information may be requested such as /equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
/All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable./
Explain the advantages of the proposal?
The advantage of the proposal is that it removes duplication and makes the document more precise.
Explain the disadvantages of the proposal:
There are no disadvantages.
Regards,
Amrita
[wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
Thank you Bertrand for the suggestions will make the necessary changes.
Any other comment anyone?
Regards,
Amrita
From: Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc Sent: 02 August 2021 10:17 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Re: Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1
Hi Amrita,
I also fully support this proposal, please find bellow my remarks.
Typo from "Objective of policy change:" more simpler (or more simple)
Having 5.6 in one single block is "hard to read" If someone, a native English speaking person, could please check this sentence : "Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment [...]" it doesn't sound good to me (but then again, I'm french :p )
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans.
Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Best Regards,
Le 02/08/2021 à 01:58, Amrita Choudhury a écrit :
Dear All,
As there have not been any comments on our draft proposal related to observation of the Policy document with respect to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1, we will go ahead and submit the same.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Amrita Choudhury mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com amritachoudhury8@gmail.com Sent: 27 July 2021 08:59 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi' mailto:sunny@apnic.net sunny@apnic.net Subject: RE: [wg-pdr] Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1 Importance: High
Dear All,
The APNIC Secretariat had the following observations:
“• Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive
– Resource request supportive documentation
– 5.6.1 could be deleted”
Simon and I propose the following draft proposal for it and request your views on the same by 31 July.
Title of proposal * Documentation
Problem statement:
It has been observed that the Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive in the Resource Request Supportive Document.
Objective of policy change:
The objective of the policy change is to make the policy more simpler and easier for the community to understand and adopt and remove duplication if any.
Situation in other regions:
ARIN: Does not seem to have a definitive document on the same.
Reference Link: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/ https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
RIPE NCC: Does not seem to have a consolidated document
Reference Link: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0
LACNIC: mentions
2.3.2.5.Documentation
Internet Registries shall use the IPv4 addresses they have been allocated in an efficient manner. To this end, IRs shall document the justification for each IPv4 address assignment. At the request of LACNIC, the corresponding IR shall make this information available. LACNIC shall not make complementary allocations to those Internet Registries that have not properly documented the use of the blocks already allocated. In these cases, existing allocations may also be reviewed.
The documentation LACNIC may require includes:
• Engineering plans.
• Subnetting and aggregation plan.
• Description of network topology.
• Description of network routing plans.
• Receipts documenting investments (equipment).
• Other relevant documents
Reference Link: https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf
AFRINIC: Policy document mentions
5.2.3 Documentation
In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Reference Link: https://afrinic.net/policy/manual https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
Proposed policy solution:
To avoid duplication, the proposal is to remove 5.6.1 and include any additional requirements into 5.6.
Currently the two sections are as follows:
Section 5.6. General requirements
All requests for address space must be supported by documentation describing:
1. The network infrastructure of the organization making the request, 2. Any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), 3. Previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and 4. The intended use for the address space requested.
In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, as outlined below.
Section 5.6.1. Documentation states
To properly evaluate requests, IRs must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. This documentation may include:
1. Network engineering plans 2. Subnetting plans 3. Descriptions of network topology 4. Descriptions of network routing plans 5. Equipment invoices and purchase orders 6. Other relevant documents
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Ref link: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#5.6.-General-requirements-f...
What we propose is:
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. Further based on request the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Explain the advantages of the proposal?
The advantage of the proposal is that it removes duplication and makes the document more precise.
Explain the disadvantages of the proposal:
There are no disadvantages.
Regards,
Amrita
_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
Also agree with this … again, simplification and avoid duplication as I suggested back in my document.
Also, I think the single paragraph is more difficult to read that using bullets for each set of documents, etc. Same contents, but use bullets.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/8/21 6:47, "Bertrand Cherrier" b.cherrier@micrologic.nc escribió:
Hi Amrita,
I also fully support this proposal, please find bellow my remarks.
Typo from "Objective of policy change:" more simpler (or more simple)
Having 5.6 in one single block is "hard to read" If someone, a native English speaking person, could please check this sentence : "Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment [...]" it doesn't sound good to me (but then again, I'm french :p )
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans.
Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Best Regards,
Le 02/08/2021 à 01:58, Amrita Choudhury a écrit :
Dear All,
As there have not been any comments on our draft proposal related to observation of the Policy document with respect to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1, we will go ahead and submit the same.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury8@gmail.com Sent: 27 July 2021 08:59 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi' sunny@apnic.net Subject: RE: [wg-pdr] Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1 Importance: High
Dear All,
The APNIC Secretariat had the following observations:
“• Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive
– Resource request supportive documentation
– 5.6.1 could be deleted”
Simon and I propose the following draft proposal for it and request your views on the same by 31 July.
Title of proposal * Documentation
Problem statement:
It has been observed that the Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive in the Resource Request Supportive Document.
Objective of policy change:
The objective of the policy change is to make the policy more simpler and easier for the community to understand and adopt and remove duplication if any.
Situation in other regions:
ARIN: Does not seem to have a definitive document on the same.
Reference Link: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
RIPE NCC: Does not seem to have a consolidated document
Reference Link: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0
LACNIC: mentions
2.3.2.5.Documentation
Internet Registries shall use the IPv4 addresses they have been allocated in an efficient manner. To this end, IRs shall document the justification for each IPv4 address assignment. At the request of LACNIC, the corresponding IR shall make this information available. LACNIC shall not make complementary allocations to those Internet Registries that have not properly documented the use of the blocks already allocated. In these cases, existing allocations may also be reviewed.
The documentation LACNIC may require includes:
• Engineering plans.
• Subnetting and aggregation plan.
• Description of network topology.
• Description of network routing plans.
• Receipts documenting investments (equipment).
• Other relevant documents
Reference Link: https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf
AFRINIC: Policy document mentions
5.2.3 Documentation
In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Reference Link: https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
Proposed policy solution:
To avoid duplication, the proposal is to remove 5.6.1 and include any additional requirements into 5.6.
Currently the two sections are as follows:
Section 5.6. General requirements
All requests for address space must be supported by documentation describing:
1. The network infrastructure of the organization making the request,
2. Any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space),
3. Previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and
4. The intended use for the address space requested.
In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, as outlined below.
Section 5.6.1. Documentation states
To properly evaluate requests, IRs must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. This documentation may include:
1. Network engineering plans
2. Subnetting plans
3. Descriptions of network topology
4. Descriptions of network routing plans
5. Equipment invoices and purchase orders
6. Other relevant documents
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Ref link: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#5.6.-General-requirements-f...
What we propose is:
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. Further based on request the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Explain the advantages of the proposal?
The advantage of the proposal is that it removes duplication and makes the document more precise.
Explain the disadvantages of the proposal:
There are no disadvantages.
Regards,
Amrita
_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
Thanks for the comment Jordi.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Jordi Palet Martínez via [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group wg-pdr@apnic.net Sent: 03 August 2021 22:38 To: Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc; wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] Re: Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1
Also agree with this … again, simplification and avoid duplication as I suggested back in my document.
Also, I think the single paragraph is more difficult to read that using bullets for each set of documents, etc. Same contents, but use bullets.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/8/21 6:47, "Bertrand Cherrier" <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@micrologic.nc > escribió:
Hi Amrita,
I also fully support this proposal, please find bellow my remarks.
Typo from "Objective of policy change:" more simpler (or more simple)
Having 5.6 in one single block is "hard to read" If someone, a native English speaking person, could please check this sentence : "Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment [...]" it doesn't sound good to me (but then again, I'm french :p )
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans.
Further, based on request, the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Best Regards,
Le 02/08/2021 à 01:58, Amrita Choudhury a écrit :
Dear All,
As there have not been any comments on our draft proposal related to observation of the Policy document with respect to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1, we will go ahead and submit the same.
Regards,
Amrita
From: Amrita Choudhury mailto:amritachoudhury8@gmail.com amritachoudhury8@gmail.com Sent: 27 July 2021 08:59 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: 'Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi' mailto:sunny@apnic.net sunny@apnic.net Subject: RE: [wg-pdr] Request your comment on Draft Proposal related to observation related to Sec 5.6 and 5.6.1 Importance: High
Dear All,
The APNIC Secretariat had the following observations:
“• Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive
– Resource request supportive documentation
– 5.6.1 could be deleted”
Simon and I propose the following draft proposal for it and request your views on the same by 31 July.
Title of proposal * Documentation
Problem statement:
It has been observed that the Sections 5.6 and 5.6.1 are repetitive in the Resource Request Supportive Document.
Objective of policy change:
The objective of the policy change is to make the policy more simpler and easier for the community to understand and adopt and remove duplication if any.
Situation in other regions:
ARIN: Does not seem to have a definitive document on the same.
Reference Link: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/ https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
RIPE NCC: Does not seem to have a consolidated document
Reference Link: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies?b_start:int=0
LACNIC: mentions
2.3.2.5.Documentation
Internet Registries shall use the IPv4 addresses they have been allocated in an efficient manner. To this end, IRs shall document the justification for each IPv4 address assignment. At the request of LACNIC, the corresponding IR shall make this information available. LACNIC shall not make complementary allocations to those Internet Registries that have not properly documented the use of the blocks already allocated. In these cases, existing allocations may also be reviewed.
The documentation LACNIC may require includes:
• Engineering plans.
• Subnetting and aggregation plan.
• Description of network topology.
• Description of network routing plans.
• Receipts documenting investments (equipment).
• Other relevant documents
Reference Link: https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/680/1/manual-politicas-en-2-14.pdf
AFRINIC: Policy document mentions
5.2.3 Documentation
In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Reference Link: https://afrinic.net/policy/manual https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
Proposed policy solution:
To avoid duplication, the proposal is to remove 5.6.1 and include any additional requirements into 5.6.
Currently the two sections are as follows:
Section 5.6. General requirements
All requests for address space must be supported by documentation describing:
1. The network infrastructure of the organization making the request,
2. Any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space),
3. Previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and
4. The intended use for the address space requested.
In addition to this general requirement, more specific documentation may also be requested, as outlined below.
Section 5.6.1. Documentation states
To properly evaluate requests, IRs must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. This documentation may include:
1. Network engineering plans
2. Subnetting plans
3. Descriptions of network topology
4. Descriptions of network routing plans
5. Equipment invoices and purchase orders
6. Other relevant documents
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Ref link: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#5.6.-General-requirements-f...
What we propose is:
5.6 General Requirements:
In order to properly evaluate requests, APNIC must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, sub-netting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. Further based on request the following information may be requested such as equipment invoices and purchase orders, any address space currently held by that organization (including Historical address space), previous assignments made by that organization (including assignments made from Historical address allocations), and the intended use for the address space requested.
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable.
Explain the advantages of the proposal?
The advantage of the proposal is that it removes duplication and makes the document more precise.
Explain the disadvantages of the proposal:
There are no disadvantages.
Regards,
Amrita
_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net mailto:wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net
Activity Summary
- 601 days inactive
- 601 days old
- wg-pdr@apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 5 comments