Re: [sig-policy] New Proposal prop-139-v001: SOR not required

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Satoru,

 

I’m not sure to understand your comments.

 

If the exising SOR is not being use, it means that removing it will not make a significant difference, right? So we’re not making allocations easier, we are just trusting that if the SOR is not being used, we should adapt the policy to existing reality.

 

In any case, if a LIR come back for more resources, and has been assigning addresses to customers without a good justification, they will need to justifiy that during the APNIC review.

 

We shall also remember that we have no more IPv4 addresses, so will not make a big difference.

 

In the case of IPv6, normally a houshold will not get more than /48. A business will probably will get a /48, and if they are smart enough, they will avoid renumbering getting a provider independent assigment directly from APNIC, so if they instead require a /47, for example, that will be part of the justification already.

 

So, in summary, I really think there are not chances to abuse of the policy with the proposed change, and instead we have a simplification of procedures for both, members and secretariat.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.

I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-139,
based on a meeting we organised on 25th Aug to discuss these proposals.

Many neutral opinions were expressed about this proposal in view of the fact
that the impact of this proposal should be examined in more depth.

(comment details)
 - Isn't there a possibility that some kind of loophole or allocation
   against the purpose may occur by making allocation easier?
 - Although disorderly allocation will become possible, the total
   number of IPv4 owned by each organization will not change,
   so it should be operated at the discretion of ISPs.


Regards,

Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team

2021年8月13日(金) 8:58 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>:

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 Martínez (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

 

--

--

Satoru Tsurumaki

BBIX, Inc

 

* 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

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.