[sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

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 t

[sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

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 t

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

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 wrote: > Dear SIG members > > A new version of the proposal “prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 > eligibility

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

+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 wrote: > > Just to clarify. > >

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

How do you see needs basis going away in this wording? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; l

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

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 wrote: > > How do you see needs basis going away in this wording?

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

In addition to Owen's point, I also wonder about this: "AND - advertise the prefixes within 6 months" Is there a process in place which actually checks this? If so, will APNIC actually pull back /24 allocations which aren't advertised within 6 months? If not - why even include it? Regards,

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

I actually made this point as well... I am not a fan of pointless policies or rules. But, yes, apparently APNIC does follow up and ask what is happening if something hasn't been announced. And yes, they have the power to pull it back if you don't have a good reason. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens -

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- 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 earl