Andy1+, and support this proposal . Just keep simple, authenticate and accountable .
Regards / Jahangir On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Andy Linton <a...@nsrc.org> wrote: > 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 > >
* 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
