|
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:
|