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 > <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/networkceoau>linkedin.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 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 <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 <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
