Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.

Secondly, In considering this policy proposal in conjunction with prop-113, I am increasingly doubtful that there is anything for me to support here.

I suspect what is happening here is that these proposals (113 and 114) are conjoined and rather than significantly lowering the bar with regard to allocation of IPv4 resources, they seek removal of the bar altogether.

There are players within the community who will significantly benefit from a policy framework with a reduced multi-homing and demonstrated needs requirement, but those entities are not necessarily the end LIRs.

What these two proposals seek to do is remove all barriers to obtaining IPv4 addresses and ASNs.
One of the major problems here is that the authors seek to do this one 'cut' at a time.  Almost in an attempt to avoid waking the tiger which is ARIN's requirement for needs based allocation, or having the APNIC community discussion around 'needs based' allocation for IPv4 resources.

I would like to see us stop the subterfuge here.  

I would like to see both of these policies withdrawn and prop-116 "Removal of all barriers to allocation of IPv4 and ASN resources" put forward for debate.  It is only in that way that the true ramifications/impacts of these smaller policies can be realised and discussed by the community.

Forcing us to debate this clause by clause is a waste of community time and effort.

I strongly oppose this policy as it is currently written.


Dean


--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

Regarding prop-114, discussion points are;

1. Whether completely taking away multi-home requirement or relaxing it by adding "or unique routing policy"
    as Owen proposed and ARIN doing.
    http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/02/msg00015.html
    http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/02/msg00044.html

2. Whether we will relax it for only 4-byte AS or 2-byte also.
    (Please note that we are running out 2-byte AS and it might speed it up)

It is very appreciated if you will express your views for these points,
and also show another points if you have.

Regards,
Masato


2015-02-07 19:25 GMT-06:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com>:

Dean,

Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support.


...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it. 



On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement. 

Owen




On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:07, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:

hahahahahahahahahah

"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."

This made my morning.


...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster...

"We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.

Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.

Owen




On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. 

The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. 

Am I missing something?  I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. 

What's the problem statement here?

On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:
Hello Dean,

We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.

However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.

Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.

George K

On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:

Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?

In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?




On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Dear SIG members

    The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
    has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

    It  will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
    Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.

    We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
    before the meeting.

    The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
    important part of the policy development process. 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 available at:

    http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114


    Regards,

    Masato





    -----------------------------------------------------------
    prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Proposer:     Aftab Siddiqui
    aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
    <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>

                   Skeeve Stevens
    skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
    <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com');>


    1. Problem statement
    --------------------

         The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria
         and both should be fulfilled in order to get 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.


    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 removing multi-homing requirement for the
    organization.


    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
             Policy - 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 it:
          - Is planning to use it within next 6 months


    5. Advantages / Disadvantages
    -----------------------------

    Advantages:

         Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy
    will
         make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong
         information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.

    Disadvantages:

         No disadvantage.


    6. Impact on resource holders
    -----------------------------

         No impact on existing resource holders.


    7. References
    -------------



--
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@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
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy




--
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@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
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




--
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@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
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