Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-139-v001: SOR not required
Hi all,
I support this proposal.
This proposal can simplify the fixed IP address application
from the customer.
When receiving an application for IP address, ask the customer
to write a network diagram for SOR in advance , but the virtual
servers has increased and the network of the substance is
different from the diagram, so it became useless.
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
LIR's responsibility increases...
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
Is it necessary to keep the same level information (network
diagram, etc.) as the SOR, after the SOR is abolished?
Regards,
---
Jun
[b.cherrier@micrologic.nc - Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:58:45 +1100]:
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-139-v001: SOR not required" has been sent to
> the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52
> on Thursday, 16 September 2021.
>
> https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
> list before the OPM.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important
> part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
> ? - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> ? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
> ??? tell the community about your situation.
> ? - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> ? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> ? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>
> Information about this proposal is appended below and also available at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-139
>
> Regards,
> Bertrand and Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-139-v001: SOR not required
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> --------------------
> Section 5.2.1 enforces a SOR (Second Opinion Request) process, which is
> rarely used.
>
> It was meant for ensuring that resources aren’t wasted being allocated
> unnecessarily, however, this is already the job of the LIRs, and they
> may be audited at any point, even if this policy doesn’t exist.
>
> Further to that, doesn’t make sense that this is being done for
> exhausted IPv4 resources, while it has been already avoided for IPv6.
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -----------------------------
> Avoiding an unnecessary and rarely used process.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -----------------------------
> Other RIRs don’t have this process or it is optional/not used.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---------------------------
> Actual text:
> 5.0. Resource Management
> ...
> Also, NIRs must, wherever possible, apply slow start, assignment window,
> and second opinion policies to their own members in a manner consistent
> with the way APNIC applies such policies.
> ...
>
> 5.2.1. Assignment window for LIRs
> APNIC and NIRs shall apply an assignment window mechanism to help LIRs
> understand and comply with APNIC policies and the address management goals.
> The assignment window indicates the maximum number of addresses an LIR
> may delegate to an end-user without first seeking a "second opinion". If
> an LIR wishes to make a delegation that exceeds its delegation window,
> the LIR must first submit a second opinion request.
> LIRs start with a delegation window of zero, meaning all proposed
> delegations must first be approved.
> APNIC, or the relevant NIR, will regularly assess the proficiency of LIR
> staff in making delegations and seeking second opinions and will review
> the size of the assignment window accordingly. As the LIR staff become
> more proficient, the size of their assignment window may be raised.
> The maximum IPv4 assignment window given to any LIR will be a /19 (8,192
> addresses).
> If an LIR's staff appears to become less proficient (for example, due to
> the training of new staff or other relevant circumstances) then that
> LIR's assignment window may be temporarily reduced.
> 5.2.3. IPv4 Delegations to downstream IRs
> …
> ? Delegations are subject to the LIR's assignment window. Requests for
> delegations, which exceed the LIR's assignment window, must first be
> referred to APNIC for second opinion approval.
> …
>
> Proposed text:
> 5.0. Resource Management
> ...
> Also, NIRs must, wherever possible, apply slow start policies to their
> own members in a manner consistent with the way APNIC applies such
> policies.
> ...
>
>
> (removed)
> 5.2.3. IPv4 Delegations to downstream IRs
> …
>
> (removed)
>
> …
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -----------------------------
> Advantages:
> Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
>
> Disadvantages:
> None.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> -----------------------------
> None.
>
>
> 7. References
> -------------
> None.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy