Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Jahangir Hossain]

I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but
organization should share their future plan of multi-homing to get ASN.




On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria,
> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
>
> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
> for the final Comment Period.
>
> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The
> Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to
> allow further discussion.
>
> If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
>
>- Send all comments and questions to: 
>- Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015
>
>
>
> Proposal details
> 
>
> This is a proposal changes the criteria for AS number requests from
> end-user organizations considering multihoming.
>
> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:
>
>  http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114
>
> Regards
>
> Masato and Sumon
>
> ---
>
> 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
>
> - have 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.
>
>
> *  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
>
>


-- 
*Regards / Jahangir *
*  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] Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

[Jahangir Hossain]

Andy1+, and support this proposal . Just keep simple,  authenticate  and
accountable .




Regards / Jahangir




On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Andy Linton  wrote:

> I support this proposal.
>
> I support it because it makes it slightly easier for organisations in
> developing regions to get a workable allocation of IPv4 address space which
> is provider independent allowing them to change their provider without
> renumbering.
>
> But I don't believe it goes far enough. The criteria should be simply that
> the requesting organisation asks for a block of addresses that they intend
> to connect to the Internet within a short period - I think that one month
> would be fine but I'd happily compromise on that.
>
> The address policy could then be simply:
>
> "When an organisation requests space they are given a /24 of IPv4 space, a
> /48 of IPv6 address space and an ASN. Any larger requests must be justified
> with an address plan."
>
> When we finally really run out of IPv4  space, let the market take over
> and APNIC can register the transactions.
>
> So to be clear, I support this proposal because it moves us in the right
> direction.
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria,
>> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
>> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
>>
>> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
>> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
>> for the final Comment Period.
>>
>> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
>> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The
>> Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to
>> allow further discussion.
>>
>> If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
>> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
>>
>>- Send all comments and questions to: 
>>- Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Proposal details
>> 
>>
>> This is a proposal changes the criteria for IPv4 address requests from
>> end-user organizations considering multihoming.
>>
>> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
>> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:
>>
>>  http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Masato and Sumon
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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
>> ---

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Thanks Andy,

I'd love to hear how you think we can make it even better.  I am always
pushing to make things easier with less burden, while maintaining some sort
of order.

I hope we can improve this process the further we go along.

Auckland is next, let's see what we can do there!


...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 ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
https://keybase.io/skeeve


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Andy Linton  wrote:

> I support this proposal.
>
> I support it because it makes it slightly easier for organisations in
> developing regions to get a workable allocation of IPv4 address space which
> is provider independent allowing them to change their provider without
> renumbering.
>
> But I don't believe it goes far enough. The criteria should be simply that
> the requesting organisation asks for a block of addresses that they intend
> to connect to the Internet within a short period - I think that one month
> would be fine but I'd happily compromise on that.
>
> The address policy could then be simply:
>
> "When an organisation requests space they are given a /24 of IPv4 space, a
> /48 of IPv6 address space and an ASN. Any larger requests must be justified
> with an address plan."
>
> When we finally really run out of IPv4  space, let the market take over
> and APNIC can register the transactions.
>
> So to be clear, I support this proposal because it moves us in the right
> direction.
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria,
>> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
>> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
>>
>> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
>> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
>> for the final Comment Period.
>>
>> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
>> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The
>> Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to
>> allow further discussion.
>>
>> If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
>> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
>>
>>- Send all comments and questions to: 
>>- Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Proposal details
>> 
>>
>> This is a proposal changes the criteria for IPv4 address requests from
>> end-user organizations considering multihoming.
>>
>> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
>> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:
>>
>>  http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Masato and Sumon
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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: 

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

[Andy Linton]

I support this proposal.

I support it because it makes it slightly easier for organisations in
developing regions to get a workable allocation of IPv4 address space which
is provider independent allowing them to change their provider without
renumbering.

But I don't believe it goes far enough. The criteria should be simply that
the requesting organisation asks for a block of addresses that they intend
to connect to the Internet within a short period - I think that one month
would be fine but I'd happily compromise on that.

The address policy could then be simply:

"When an organisation requests space they are given a /24 of IPv4 space, a
/48 of IPv6 address space and an ASN. Any larger requests must be justified
with an address plan."

When we finally really run out of IPv4  space, let the market take over and
APNIC can register the transactions.

So to be clear, I support this proposal because it moves us in the right
direction.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Masato Yamanishi 
wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria,
> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
>
> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
> for the final Comment Period.
>
> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The
> Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to
> allow further discussion.
>
> If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
>
>- Send all comments and questions to: 
>- Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015
>
>
>
> Proposal details
> 
>
> This is a proposal changes the criteria for IPv4 address requests from
> end-user organizations considering multihoming.
>
> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:
>
>  http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113
>
> Regards
>
> Masato and Sumon
>
>
> 
>
> 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

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Andy Linton]

Support.
On Sep 12, 2015 9:27 PM, "Masato Yamanishi"  wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria,
> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
>
> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
> for the final Comment Period.
>
> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The
> Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to
> allow further discussion.
>
> If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
>
>- Send all comments and questions to: 
>- Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015
>
>
>
> Proposal details
> 
>
> This is a proposal changes the criteria for AS number requests from
> end-user organizations considering multihoming.
>
> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:
>
>  http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114
>
> Regards
>
> Masato and Sumon
>
> ---
>
> 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
>
> - have 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.
>
>
> *  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

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

[Skeeve Stevens]

Masato-san,

With the greatest respect for Tomohiro-san and Ruri-san and yourself, I am
very disappointed with your decision to return prop-115 to the list AGAIN
for discussion and for a survey.

You asked for consensus on a Survey and asked who was FOR it - no one (I
can see)... who was AGAINST - no one (I can see).  Your response was "since
there is no objection to have such survey" - BUT there was no support
either!  You've chose to spend money and time of APNICs on something that
no one cares about - at all.

You say below that the proposal did not reach consensus. NO ONE supporting
it - apart from the authors is the definition of consensus - which is that
it is *not* supported. It is also now at its third version and there is
STILL no support. (for history see
https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115)

It had no support even in Japan at APNIC 39 - does this not say something
that a policy in the home country does not even get up?

Masato, why are you keeping this proposal alive? to the point of spending
money and resources on it.  This is starting to smell like you are looking
out for a fellow countryman or APNIC wants it to happen.  I would hope as
Chair this would not be the case, but all indications point to it as you
will not let it die based on the overwhelming lack of support the proposal
has.

I have nothing against this policy as such... I just think that it is an
overhead that the ISPs rather than APNIC needs to do.  I am not against
it... or for it.  But I am against you trying to push along a policy on
life-support until people get so bored someone supports it into existence.

Community... if you support this proposal... then SHOW you do... here...
now.  If you do NOT support it, then please (again) also state that you do
not - before money is spent on it.


...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 ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase:
https://keybase.io/skeeve


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Masato Yamanishi 
wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information
> in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open
> Policy Meeting.
>
> The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research
> into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for
> further consideration.
>
> Proposal details
> 
>
> This proposal seeks to require LIRs to register accurate filtering
> information, such as IPv4 port-range information and IPv6 assignment
> prefix size.
>
> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:
>
>  http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115
>
> Regards
>
> Masato and Sumon
>
>
>
> 
> prop-115-v003: Registration of detailed assignment information in
>whois DB
> 
>
> Proposer:   Ruri Hiromi
> hir...@inetcore.com
>
> Tomohiro Fujisaki
> fujis...@syce.net
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> 
>
> Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment
> information in more detail to specify user IP address.
>
> Without this information, operators cannot filter out specific
> address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering
> whole ISP's address range).
>
> For example:
>
> 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4
>
>ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing
>technology with assignment of IP address and specified port
>range to their users.
>
>In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user.
>
>ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA
>192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB
>
>or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X
>minimum size is /32
>
> 2) address assignment size information in IPv6
>
>The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP and
>its service estimation. Address assignment prefix size will be
>necessary.
>
>ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA
>2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB
>
>or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -
>
> Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to
> their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be
> filtered or not.
>
> The goal is providing more specific information to support these
> actions.
>
>
> 3. Situation in 

[sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Masato Yamanishi]

Dear colleagues

Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria,
reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).

This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
for the final Comment Period.

At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The
Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to
allow further discussion.

If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

   - Send all comments and questions to: 
   - Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015



Proposal details


This is a proposal changes the criteria for AS number requests from
end-user organizations considering multihoming.

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:

 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114

Regards

Masato and Sumon

---

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

- have 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.
*  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] Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

[Masato Yamanishi]

Dear colleagues

Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria,
reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).

This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
for the final Comment Period.

At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The
Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to
allow further discussion.

If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

   - Send all comments and questions to: 
   - Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015



Proposal details


This is a proposal changes the criteria for IPv4 address requests from
end-user organizations considering multihoming.

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:

 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113

Regards

Masato and Sumon




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.
*  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] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

[Masato Yamanishi]

Dear colleagues

Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information
in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open
Policy Meeting.

The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research
into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for
further consideration.

Proposal details


This proposal seeks to require LIRs to register accurate filtering
information, such as IPv4 port-range information and IPv6 assignment
prefix size.

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at:

 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115

Regards

Masato and Sumon




prop-115-v003: Registration of detailed assignment information in
   whois DB


Proposer:   Ruri Hiromi
hir...@inetcore.com

Tomohiro Fujisaki
fujis...@syce.net


1. Problem statement


Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment
information in more detail to specify user IP address.

Without this information, operators cannot filter out specific
address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering
whole ISP's address range).

For example:

1) 'Port' range information in IPv4

   ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing
   technology with assignment of IP address and specified port
   range to their users.

   In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user.

   ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA
   192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB

   or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X
   minimum size is /32

2) address assignment size information in IPv6

   The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP and
   its service estimation. Address assignment prefix size will be
   necessary.

   ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA
   2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB

   or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56


2. Objective of policy change
-

Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to
their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be
filtered or not.

The goal is providing more specific information to support these
actions.


3. Situation in other regions
-

No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB.

For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address
entry.

For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information
for specific IPv6 address.


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-

Advantages:

 - operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct assignment
   information base.

 - users who share same address space can be avoid to be including bulk
   filtering.

Disadvantages:

 - registration rule will move to more strict manner.

 - strict watch and control in registration of database records.

 - additional record or option will be considered.

 - privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these
   records.


6. Impact on APNIC
--

This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB and appropriate
changes in policy document or guidance to whois DB will be needed.

Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed to set
access privilege to the detailed information.

Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed in
Help message/Warning/Alert when whois DB has non-privileged access.

Some kind of promotion cost might be needed in announcing.

Need cooperation and support from members(ISPs).

7. Other Consideration
--

For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see
only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is
needed)

For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration
should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a
harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting
services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands.

Some ISP use IRR DB to notice their filter policy towards BGP
community with "remarks" filed in aut-num record. Need more
discussion among APNIC members on using whois DB versus IRR DB.

Start a pilot project for research its demands and effectiveness
in APNIC region. APNIC is a worthy body to lead this pilot project.

There are some opinions that it is not suitable to handle those
issues at the Internet Registrie