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

On 5 March 2015 at 12:10, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote:

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

* 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