Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligi
Hash: SHA1
support.
- -gaurab
On 3/6/15 12:14 AM, Masato Yamanishi 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-v003: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com
> <mailto:aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>
>
> Skeeve Stevens skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com
> <mailto: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
>
> Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms must
> demonstrate that they are able to use 25% of the requested
> addresses immediately and 50% within one year.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> * 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
>
- --
http://www.gaurab.org.np/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAlT5AQEACgkQSo7fU26F3X2aowCg9jHA7f08gLF+GTLURLTf6hcu
pj4AoIvviLI3yBJpNVo3OMBRzd3jqYGU
=ZxE7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----