• Date Prev
• Date Next
• Thread Prev
• Thread Next
• Date Index
• Thread Index

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligi

• To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com>
• Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
• From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
• Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 17:10:28 -0800
• Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
• Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
• Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1425517829; bh=pqrVzXhA8exy4O73yivoWTNcFGw=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=V6awEZlJJKq+/Dt4Z7Y0mxFYIA8POCpnU5DhJQ45ZNTx9LQPTEb7RxjmrWmuhjHwg sl3DHoYm2fLoq1GglOO2D5YMsU96Tqqc2GYdS3CRd1uYxJPkV7pkvm4p+rnw9sFHFq YpMBTp9YgVpDE8DrstzMC/hlWLhyVtvDMmg5TDVc=
• In-reply-to: <CAEUfUGMi5TtjpP9kOjNynHe_HJcm_U7+YcFfdg6MMHE47LC84A@mail.gmail.com>
• List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
• List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
• List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
• List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
• List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
• List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

Simply advertising a network doesn’t mean you need the addresses or that you’re actually using them in an operational network. It just means you typed in a BGP anchor statement. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:44 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote: How do you see needs basis going away in this wording? ...Skeeve Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker v4Now - an eintellego Networks service skeeve at v4now dot com ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote: +1… I’m with Dean… Still opposed. Let’s keep needs basis in place, please. I’m all for removing the requirement to multihome, but not the requirement to actually need the addresses for an operational network. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:09 , Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz> wrote: Just to clarify.  This still looks to remove needs based allocation and shift that to an "ability to advertise".  Am I missing something here? On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com> wrote: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-113: Modification in the IPv4  eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Masato -------------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-113-v002: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer:       Aftab Siddiqui                       aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com                       Skeeve Stevens                       skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com 1. Problem statement -----------------------------     The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple     eligibility criteria and applicants must meet one criteria to be     eligible to receive IPv4 resources. One of the criteria dictates     that “an organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed     with provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multi-home     within one month” (section 3.3).     The policy seems to imply that multi-homing is mandatory even if     there is no use case for the applicant to be multi-homed or even     when there is only one upstream provider available, this has created     much confusion in interpreting this policy.     As a result organizations have either tempted to provide incorrect     or fabricated multi-homing information to get the IPv4 resources or     barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change --------------------------------------     In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to     modify the text of section 3.3. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------ ARIN:     There is no multi-homing requirement RIPE:     There is no multi-homing requirement. LACNIC:     Applicant can either have multi-homing requirement or interconnect. AFRINIC:     There is no multi-homing requirement. 4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------     Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations     An organization is eligible if:     - it is currently multi-homed           OR,     - currently utilising provider (ISP) assignment of at least a /24,            AND           - intends to be multi-homed             OR,     - intends to be multi-homed     AND     - advertise the prefixes within 6 months 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------ Advantages:     Simplifies the process of applying for IPv4 address space for small     delegations and delays the immediate requirement for multi-homing as     determined to be appropriate within the timeframe as detailed in     Section 3.3. Disadvantages:     There is no known disadvantage of this proposal. 6. Impact on resource holders -----------------------------------------     No impact on existing resource holders. --  -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean at internetnz dot net dot nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next Date Index Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next Date Index Thread Index Prev by Date: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Previous by Thread: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria Index(es): Date Thread