I support this proposal. I support it because it makes it slightly easier for organisations in developing regions to get a workable allocation of IPv4 address space which is provider independent allowing them to change their provider without renumbering.
But I don't believe it goes far enough. The criteria should be simply that the requesting organisation asks for a block of addresses that they intend to connect to the Internet within a short period - I think that one month would be fine but I'd happily compromise on that. The address policy could then be simply: "When an organisation requests space they are given a /24 of IPv4 space, a /48 of IPv6 address space and an ASN. Any larger requests must be justified with an address plan." When we finally really run out of IPv4 space, let the market take over and APNIC can register the transactions. So to be clear, I support this proposal because it moves us in the right direction. On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria, > reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the > APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). > > This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy > Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list > for the final Comment Period. > > At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments > made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The > Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to > allow further discussion. > > If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive > Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. > > - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net> > - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015 > > > > Proposal details > ---------------- > > This is a proposal changes the criteria for IPv4 address requests from > end-user organizations considering multihoming. > > Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and > links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 > > Regards > > Masato and Sumon > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > prop-113-v003: 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 > > 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 year. > > > 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. > > > * 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
