Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-139, based on a meeting we organised on 25th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many neutral opinions were expressed about this proposal in view of the fact that the impact of this proposal should be examined in more depth. (comment details) - Isn't there a possibility that some kind of loophole or allocation against the purpose may occur by making allocation easier? - Although disorderly allocation will become possible, the total number of IPv4 owned by each organization will not change, so it should be operated at the discretion of ISPs. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2021年8月13日(金) 8:58 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>: > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "prop-139-v001: SOR not required" has been sent to > the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 > on Thursday, 16 September 2021. > > https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4 > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing > list before the OPM. > > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important > part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below and also available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-139 > > Regards, > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-139-v001: SOR not required > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > Section 5.2.1 enforces a SOR (Second Opinion Request) process, which is > rarely used. > > It was meant for ensuring that resources aren’t wasted being allocated > unnecessarily, however, this is already the job of the LIRs, and they > may be audited at any point, even if this policy doesn’t exist. > > Further to that, doesn’t make sense that this is being done for > exhausted IPv4 resources, while it has been already avoided for IPv6. > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > Avoiding an unnecessary and rarely used process. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > Other RIRs don’t have this process or it is optional/not used. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > Actual text: > 5.0. Resource Management > ... > Also, NIRs must, wherever possible, apply slow start, assignment window, > and second opinion policies to their own members in a manner consistent > with the way APNIC applies such policies. > ... > > 5.2.1. Assignment window for LIRs > APNIC and NIRs shall apply an assignment window mechanism to help LIRs > understand and comply with APNIC policies and the address management goals. > The assignment window indicates the maximum number of addresses an LIR > may delegate to an end-user without first seeking a "second opinion". If > an LIR wishes to make a delegation that exceeds its delegation window, > the LIR must first submit a second opinion request. > LIRs start with a delegation window of zero, meaning all proposed > delegations must first be approved. > APNIC, or the relevant NIR, will regularly assess the proficiency of LIR > staff in making delegations and seeking second opinions and will review > the size of the assignment window accordingly. As the LIR staff become > more proficient, the size of their assignment window may be raised. > The maximum IPv4 assignment window given to any LIR will be a /19 (8,192 > addresses). > If an LIR's staff appears to become less proficient (for example, due to > the training of new staff or other relevant circumstances) then that > LIR's assignment window may be temporarily reduced. > 5.2.3. IPv4 Delegations to downstream IRs > … > • Delegations are subject to the LIR's assignment window. Requests for > delegations, which exceed the LIR's assignment window, must first be > referred to APNIC for second opinion approval. > … > > Proposed text: > 5.0. Resource Management > ... > Also, NIRs must, wherever possible, apply slow start policies to their > own members in a manner consistent with the way APNIC applies such > policies. > ... > > > (removed) > 5.2.3. IPv4 Delegations to downstream IRs > … > > (removed) > > … > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > Advantages: > Fulfilling the objective above indicated. > > Disadvantages: > None. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > None. > > > 7. References > ------------- > None. > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
