Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
Secondly, In considering this policy proposal in conjunction with prop-113, I am increasingly doubtful that there is anything for me to support here. I suspect what is happening here is that these proposals (113 and 114) are conjoined and rather than significantly lowering the bar with regard to allocation of IPv4 resources, they seek removal of the bar altogether. There are players within the community who will significantly benefit from a policy framework with a reduced multi-homing and demonstrated needs requirement, but those entities are not necessarily the end LIRs. What these two proposals seek to do is remove all barriers to obtaining IPv4 addresses and ASNs. One of the major problems here is that the authors seek to do this one 'cut' at a time. Almost in an attempt to avoid waking the tiger which is ARIN's requirement for needs based allocation, or having the APNIC community discussion around 'needs based' allocation for IPv4 resources. I would like to see us stop the subterfuge here. I would like to see both of these policies withdrawn and prop-116 "Removal of all barriers to allocation of IPv4 and ASN resources" put forward for debate. It is only in that way that the true ramifications/impacts of these smaller policies can be realised and discussed by the community. Forcing us to debate this clause by clause is a waste of community time and effort. I strongly oppose this policy as it is currently written. Dean -- 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. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Regarding prop-114, discussion points are; > > 1. Whether completely taking away multi-home requirement or relaxing it by > adding "or unique routing policy" > as Owen proposed and ARIN doing. > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/02/msg00015.html > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/02/msg00044.html > > 2. Whether we will relax it for only 4-byte AS or 2-byte also. > (Please note that we are running out 2-byte AS and it might speed it > up) > > It is very appreciated if you will express your views for these points, > and also show another points if you have. > > Regards, > Masato > > > 2015-02-07 19:25 GMT-06:00 Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com>: > > 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 >> >> >
* 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
