Dean, Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support.
...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 Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it. > > > > On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too >> radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ >> unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue >> raised in the problem statement. >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:07, Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: >> >> hahahahahahahahahah >> >> "...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not >> here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands >> that everyone is present." >> >> This made my morning. >> >> >> ...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 Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from >>> hostmaster... >>> >>> "We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that >>> nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. >>> >>> Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to >>> walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, >>> please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that >>> everyone is present. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> >>> wrote: >>> >>> So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. >>> >>> The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to >>> people who contact them. >>> >>> Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy >>> sake. >>> >>> What's the problem statement here? >>> >>> On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <geo...@apnic.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Dean, >>>> >>>> We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to >>>> apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted >>>> the policy wording. >>>> >>>> However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do >>>> contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 >>>> or ASN assignment based on the current policy. >>>> >>>> Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but >>>> we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is >>>> required. >>>> >>>> George K >>>> >>>> On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: >>>> >>>>> Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: >>>>> >>>>> Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current >>>>> wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential >>>>> member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise >>>>> have been able to? >>>>> >>>>> In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters >>>>> ever been a barrier to entry? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:myama...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear SIG members >>>>> >>>>> The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility >>>>> criteria" >>>>> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >>>>> >>>>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in >>>>> Fukuoka, >>>>> Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. >>>>> >>>>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing >>>>> list >>>>> before the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is >>>>> an >>>>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you >>>>> to >>>>> express your views on the proposal: >>>>> >>>>> - Do you support or oppose this proposal? >>>>> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? >>>>> If so, >>>>> tell the community about your situation. >>>>> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? >>>>> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >>>>> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more >>>>> effective? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Information about this proposal is available at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Masato >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui >>>>> aftab.siddi...@gmail.com >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com');> >>>>> >>>>> Skeeve Stevens >>>>> ske...@eintellegonetworks.com >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com');> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Problem statement >>>>> -------------------- >>>>> >>>>> The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility >>>>> criteria >>>>> and both should be fulfilled in order to get 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 removing multi-homing requirement for the >>>>> organization. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> 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 it: >>>>> - Is planning to use it within next 6 months >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Advantages: >>>>> >>>>> Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the >>>>> policy >>>>> will >>>>> make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong >>>>> information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility. >>>>> >>>>> Disadvantages: >>>>> >>>>> No disadvantage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 6. Impact on resource holders >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> No impact on existing resource holders. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 7. References >>>>> ------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > -- > -- > 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
