This proposal seems to advocates two things:
The removal of any requirement for organisations to be multihomed
The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation.
The proposed wording states:
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations
An organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed or
inter-connected with provider (ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates
a plan to advertise the prefixes within 3 months.
Can the authors clarify that their intended state is one where an LIR
is only required to demonstrate a plan to advertise the addresses
rather than demonstrate an actual need for them?
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 7:21 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without
any negative comment.
Isn't there any concern or negative comment?
Dean>
Can you express your view after clarification?
Aflab and Skeeve>
If prop-113 will reach consensus but prop-114 will not, is it acceptable
initial approach to implement only prop-113?
Or, these are inseparable policies?
Regards,
Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
2015-02-03 22:18 GMT-06:00 Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com
wrote:
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Support.
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy