Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development process. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN 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-114 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 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-114-v002: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria -- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement - The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change -- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. 3. Situation in other regions ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision) Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --- An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed OR - meet one of the other criteria in the guidelines managed by the APNIC Secretariat 5. Advantages / Disadvantages - Advantages: By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid request. Disadvantages: It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have any effect. 6. Impact on resource holders --- No impact on existing resource holders. Proposed Draft Guidelines (to be created as a numbered document by APNIC) The below are example of guidelines that could be considered for alternate needs justification. The intention to multi-home in the future The applicant is participating in elastic fabrics where the requirements to connect to ‘on demand’ service providers may require ASN/BGP connectivity Regional limitation of obtaining multi-homing connectivity in the ‘immediate’ term, but want to design their networks for this capability Have a single unique routing policy different to their upstream, but yet are single-homed * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG
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, Robert On 5 March 2015 at 12:10, Owen DeLong o...@delong.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 ske...@v4now.com wrote: 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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau 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 o...@delong.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 d...@internetnz.net.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 myama...@gmail.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.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.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
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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau 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 o...@delong.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 d...@internetnz.net.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 myama...@gmail.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.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.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) d...@internetnz.net.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@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource
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 d...@internetnz.net.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 myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.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 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.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.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) d...@internetnz.net.nz mailto:d...@internetnz.net.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@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do think that there are better ways to address this. Is there any reason that adding the following to the existing policy would be unacceptable to you? … or an organization which has received an assignment or allocation from APNIC and has not previously obtained an ASN may obtain one ASN upon request for purposes of setting up peering for their network with one or more other other autonomous systems. Why would that not suffice? Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 15:47 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Owen, It just feels like nitpicking and moving chairs around. I actually trust the Secretariat to do the right thing when allocating resources. We're also talking about a resource where there are over 4.1 billion ASN's still available... not that it should be a justification to wastage, but it is useful for context. The APNIC stats are: How many ASN - % of Membership no ASN 34.06% 1 56.59% 2 5.55% 3 1.78% 4 0.77% 5 0.35% 6 0.28% 7 0.15% 8 0.04% 10 0.13% more than 10 0.31% I'm unsure why you guys want to see each and every use-case set in stone. I don't want to have to come back and do amendments picking on a word here or there because there has been an innovation in the way networks are operated. I fully support the idea that this isn't a free-for-all.. but we need some flexibility in the community. ...Skeeve Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker v4Now - an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com mailto:ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/ Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: If said standard pre-existing procedure were subject to the PDP, I’d be fine with that. However, that’s not what the wording implies. In the case of the IPv6 policy, I think this is less than desirable, but it’s not on the table in this discussion. Certainly if someone proposed removing that wording from the IPv6 policy, I would support such a proposal. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 14:58 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com mailto:ske...@v4now.com wrote: Do we just move the 'proposed draft guidelines' to cases under 3.3? We were trying to be flexible for future use cases without going through this painful process for every future valid use case that comes up in future. This is an established process where for subsequent IPv6 allocations: === http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3.2 http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3.2 5.3.2 Alternative allocation criteria Alternatively, a subsequent allocation may be provided where an organization (ISP/LIR) can demonstrate a valid reason for requiring the subsequent allocation. For guidelines on what will be considered a valid technical or other reason, see “APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests”. http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-guidelines http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-guidelines === Why isn't a standard pre-existing procedure acceptable to you? ...Skeeve Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker v4Now - an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com mailto:ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/ Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development process. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN 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-114 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 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
Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
That's actually getting closer to something I could support On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do think that there are better ways to address this. Is there any reason that adding the following to the existing policy would be unacceptable to you? … or an organization which has received an assignment or allocation from APNIC and has not previously obtained an ASN may obtain one ASN upon request for purposes of setting up peering for their network with one or more other other autonomous systems. Why would that not suffice? Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 15:47 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@v4now.com'); wrote: Owen, It just feels like nitpicking and moving chairs around. I actually trust the Secretariat to do the right thing when allocating resources. We're also talking about a resource where there are over 4.1 billion ASN's still available... not that it should be a justification to wastage, but it is useful for context. The APNIC stats are: How many ASN - % of Membership no ASN 34.06% 1 56.59% 2 5.55% 3 1.78% 4 0.77% 5 0.35% 6 0.28% 7 0.15% 8 0.04% 10 0.13% more than 10 0.31% I'm unsure why you guys want to see each and every use-case set in stone. I don't want to have to come back and do amendments picking on a word here or there because there has been an innovation in the way networks are operated. I fully support the idea that this isn't a free-for-all.. but we need some flexibility in the community. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@v4now.com'); ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','o...@delong.com'); wrote: If said standard pre-existing procedure were subject to the PDP, I’d be fine with that. However, that’s not what the wording implies. In the case of the IPv6 policy, I think this is less than desirable, but it’s not on the table in this discussion. Certainly if someone proposed removing that wording from the IPv6 policy, I would support such a proposal. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 14:58 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@v4now.com'); wrote: Do we just move the 'proposed draft guidelines' to cases under 3.3? We were trying to be flexible for future use cases without going through this painful process for every future valid use case that comes up in future. This is an established process where for subsequent IPv6 allocations: === http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3.2 5.3.2 Alternative allocation criteria Alternatively, a subsequent allocation may be provided where an organization (ISP/LIR) can demonstrate a valid reason for requiring the subsequent allocation. For guidelines on what will be considered a valid technical or other reason, see “APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests”. http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-guidelines === Why isn't a standard pre-existing procedure acceptable to you? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@v4now.com'); ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','o...@delong.com'); wrote: Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development process. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','myama...@gmail.com'); wrote: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN 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-114 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
Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Owen, It just feels like nitpicking and moving chairs around. I actually trust the Secretariat to do the right thing when allocating resources. We're also talking about a resource where there are over 4.1 billion ASN's still available... not that it should be a justification to wastage, but it is useful for context. The APNIC stats are: How many ASN - % of Membership no ASN 34.06% 1 56.59% 2 5.55% 3 1.78% 4 0.77% 5 0.35% 6 0.28% 7 0.15% 8 0.04% 10 0.13% more than 10 0.31% I'm unsure why you guys want to see each and every use-case set in stone. I don't want to have to come back and do amendments picking on a word here or there because there has been an innovation in the way networks are operated. I fully support the idea that this isn't a free-for-all.. but we need some flexibility in the community. ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: If said standard pre-existing procedure were subject to the PDP, I’d be fine with that. However, that’s not what the wording implies. In the case of the IPv6 policy, I think this is less than desirable, but it’s not on the table in this discussion. Certainly if someone proposed removing that wording from the IPv6 policy, I would support such a proposal. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 14:58 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Do we just move the 'proposed draft guidelines' to cases under 3.3? We were trying to be flexible for future use cases without going through this painful process for every future valid use case that comes up in future. This is an established process where for subsequent IPv6 allocations: === http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3.2 5.3.2 Alternative allocation criteria Alternatively, a subsequent allocation may be provided where an organization (ISP/LIR) can demonstrate a valid reason for requiring the subsequent allocation. For guidelines on what will be considered a valid technical or other reason, see “APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests”. http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-guidelines === Why isn't a standard pre-existing procedure acceptable to you? ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development process. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN 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-114 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-114-v002: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria -- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement - The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change -- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to
[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 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.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.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. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
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 ske...@v4now.com wrote: 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 mailto:ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/ Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com mailto:o...@delong.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 d...@internetnz.net.nz mailto:d...@internetnz.net.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 myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.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 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.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.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
Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Yes, because it seems to make more sense to you to waste everyones time discussing something that could be sorted out as much as possible on the list before we take it to the SIG. Good one. ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: I guess we'll get to discuss those issues during the policy sig today. On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Do we just move the 'proposed draft guidelines' to cases under 3.3? We were trying to be flexible for future use cases without going through this painful process for every future valid use case that comes up in future. This is an established process where for subsequent IPv6 allocations: === http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3.2 5.3.2 Alternative allocation criteria Alternatively, a subsequent allocation may be provided where an organization (ISP/LIR) can demonstrate a valid reason for requiring the subsequent allocation. For guidelines on what will be considered a valid technical or other reason, see “APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests”. http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-guidelines === Why isn't a standard pre-existing procedure acceptable to you? ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development process. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN 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-114 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-114-v002: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria -- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement - The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change -- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. 3. Situation in other regions ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision) Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --- An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed OR - meet one of the other criteria in the guidelines managed by the APNIC Secretariat 5.
Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Owen, That is almost, but not quite ok. There may be cases where you have the same reason to do this for a second or third ASN. Say I need one for an isolated network in HK, or NZ, or KH with a completely separate routing policy? The same criteria should apply for the first and 10th? ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do think that there are better ways to address this. Is there any reason that adding the following to the existing policy would be unacceptable to you? … or an organization which has received an assignment or allocation from APNIC and has not previously obtained an ASN may obtain one ASN upon request for purposes of setting up peering for their network with one or more other other autonomous systems. Why would that not suffice? Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 15:47 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Owen, It just feels like nitpicking and moving chairs around. I actually trust the Secretariat to do the right thing when allocating resources. We're also talking about a resource where there are over 4.1 billion ASN's still available... not that it should be a justification to wastage, but it is useful for context. The APNIC stats are: How many ASN - % of Membership no ASN 34.06% 1 56.59% 2 5.55% 3 1.78% 4 0.77% 5 0.35% 6 0.28% 7 0.15% 8 0.04% 10 0.13% more than 10 0.31% I'm unsure why you guys want to see each and every use-case set in stone. I don't want to have to come back and do amendments picking on a word here or there because there has been an innovation in the way networks are operated. I fully support the idea that this isn't a free-for-all.. but we need some flexibility in the community. ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: If said standard pre-existing procedure were subject to the PDP, I’d be fine with that. However, that’s not what the wording implies. In the case of the IPv6 policy, I think this is less than desirable, but it’s not on the table in this discussion. Certainly if someone proposed removing that wording from the IPv6 policy, I would support such a proposal. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 14:58 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Do we just move the 'proposed draft guidelines' to cases under 3.3? We were trying to be flexible for future use cases without going through this painful process for every future valid use case that comes up in future. This is an established process where for subsequent IPv6 allocations: === http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3.2 5.3.2 Alternative allocation criteria Alternatively, a subsequent allocation may be provided where an organization (ISP/LIR) can demonstrate a valid reason for requiring the subsequent allocation. For guidelines on what will be considered a valid technical or other reason, see “APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests”. http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-guidelines === Why isn't a standard pre-existing procedure acceptable to you? ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Opposed as written. Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development process. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN 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-114 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there
Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Good question David. Secretariat... can we have those numbers? ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:33 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: On Mar 4, 2015, at 17:47, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: ... The APNIC stats are: How many ASN - % of Membership no ASN 34.06% 1 56.59% 2 5.55% 3 1.78% 4 0.77% 5 0.35% 6 0.28% 7 0.15% 8 0.04% 10 0.13% more than 10 0.31% Very interesting and useful stats. Are there non-member ASNs, maybe legacy or historic? If so, how many non-members have ASNs? Or, what is the ratio between member and non-member ASNs? I'm not really expecting that much, but on the other hand I don't want to assume either. -- === David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: +1-612-812-9952 === * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
[sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-114v003
In this text, the suggested guidelines have been removed to be replaced with: - you have been previous allocated provider independent address space by APNIC AND - intend to multi-home in the future This policy can be reviewed on an annual basis for any impact on the number of allocations of ASN and if there has been any detrimental effect. == --- prop-114-v003: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change - In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. 3. Situation in other regions - ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision) Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --- An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed OR - you have been previous allocated provider independent address space by APNIC AND - intend to multi-home in the future 5. Advantages / Disadvantages - Advantages: By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid request. Disadvantages: It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have any effect. 6. Impact on resource holders - No impact on existing resource holders. 7. References - == ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
[sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-113v003
The only addition to this text was the clarification of demonstrated need. It is not being removed and will remain in place as below. 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. = prop-113-v003: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.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. 7. References - ...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
