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 <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: > > 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 <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 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > +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 <d...@internetnz.net.nz >> <mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >> >> 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 <myama...@gmail.com >> <mailto:myama...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> 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 >> <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113> >> >> 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-113-v002: 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 >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> 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 <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
