[sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

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 th

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Hi, On Mar 4, 2015 5:02 PM, "Masato Yamanishi" 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/po

Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB

I simply don’t see this as at all likely to have the desired effect. When ISPs put an abuse block in, it’s a very high-overhead thing to do. Generally, in order to maximize the probability that the problem will get resolved at the source, while minimizing the odds of having to play whack-a-mole,

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 wrote: > > Dear SIG member

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

I agree with Owen here. I oppose as written. On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Owen DeLong 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 > pol

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

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: === htt

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

I guess we'll get to discuss those issues during the policy sig today. On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Skeeve Stevens 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 ev

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 ;

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

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 wo

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 i

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

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 You are encouraged to express your views on t

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

Just to clarify. This still looks to remove needs based allocation and shift that to an "ability to advertise". Am I missing something here? On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Dear SIG members > > A new version of the proposal “prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 > eligibility

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 17:47, Skeeve Stevens 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

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

+1… I’m with Dean… Still opposed. Let’s keep needs basis in place, please. I’m all for removing the requirement to multihome, but not the requirement to actually need the addresses for an operational network. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:09 , Dean Pemberton wrote: > > Just to clarify. > >

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-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 APN

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 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

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 ;

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

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

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-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? ...Skeev

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

Simply advertising a network doesn’t mean you need the addresses or that you’re actually using them in an operational network. It just means you typed in a BGP anchor statement. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:44 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > How do you see needs basis going away in this wording?

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

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

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

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

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

I don’t see any rational use case for a second or third ASN where it wouldn’t be peering with at least 2 ASNs. If you can present one, then I could be convinced to reconsider. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:46 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > Owen, > > That is almost, but not quite ok. > > There m

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Hi David and Skeeve, The requested data for APNIC ASN assignments are as below. Regular : historical 99.87% : 0.13% Member : non-member 97.44% : 2.56% Best regards, Guangliang = From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Owen, See my case of the elastic network. Using Megaport as an example, they are now online in Australia, Auckland, Singapore and Hong Kong and are going to many US cities next year. Each country (at the moment) fabric is an isolated infrastructure. So, if I wanted to put a connection online in

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

Thank you very much Guangliang ...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 t

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/5/15 2:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > So, if I wanted to put a connection online in Singapore, and only > connected to one upstream, but also connect to Megaport, or > Pacnets PEN - or to Megaports MLPA IX - which is state based - or > other fab

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 18:31 , Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 3/5/15 2:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > >> So, if I wanted to put a connection online in Singapore, and only >> connected to one upstream, but also connect to Megaport, or >> Pac

[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 allocati

[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 ye

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-113v003

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 With the 'non-removal' of the needs assessment, I am happy to support this proposal. thanks -gaurab On 3/5/15 4:50 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > The only addition to this text was the clarification of > demonstrated need. It is not being removed a

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-114v003

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I support this. - -gaurab On 3/5/15 4:50 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > 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 > > >

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-114v003

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > 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

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-114v003

That’s text I can support. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 21:27 , Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I support this. > > - -gaurab > > > On 3/5/15 4:50 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: >> In this text, the suggested guidelines have been removed to be >> r

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-113v003

I support this as written. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 20:50 , Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > 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 dem

Re: [sig-policy] Updated Text - Prop-114v003

I think this is an improvement, but I can support either way. Owen > On Mar 4, 2015, at 21:54 , Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens > wrote: > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > > An organisation is elig