I do not support this proposal as currently written, on the basis
that there is currently insufficient detail provided to convincingly
argue for the change of allocation criteria. Although I moved the
removal of multi-homing for IPv6 PI allocations, I believe that the
critical shortage of IPv4 addresses requires different and more
stringent arguments than those used for IPv6.
I would though like to ask the community what I believe are some
related questions:
Does the Policy SIG believe that a company which is *not* an ISP
(e.g. a retail enterprise) but requires 200-300 addresses (for some
"genuine" reason, whatever that might be) can/should be treated as
an LIR by APNIC under its current IPv4 policy (i.e. by section 3.1),
or is the only way for that company to be allocated APNIC addresses
is under the (current) Section 3.3 (small multihoming)?
If a company can be treated like an LIR, and obtain addresses under
section 3.1, then when would you use section 3.3? (And if there were
no need to use section 3.3, then presumably you wouldn't need this
proposal.)
Otherwise, assuming that ISPs have a limited ability to assign IPv4
addresses because of global exhaustion, imagine that (sooner or
later) ISPs might not be willing to allocate a "large" provider
assigned address block like a /24 to such a company. If the only
option for the company were to approach APNIC, and the company is
expected to obtain addresses under section 3.3, but the company only
wishes to deal with one ISP (for some commercial reason, for
example), then it seems the company would not be able to obtain the
addresses it needs because of the multihoming requirement.
If that is a valid scenario, and the community believes that such a
company should have access to some addresses from APNIC, then I
believe a more developed form of this proposal would be required.
Regards,
David Woodgate
On 4/02/2015 4:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi
wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-113:
Modification in the IPv4 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-113
Regards
Masato
------------------------------------------------------------
prop-113-v001: Modification in the
IPv4 eligibility criteria
------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
1. Problem statement
--------------------
The current APNIC IPv4
delegation policy defines multiple
eligibility criteria and
applicant must meet one 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
inter-connected with provider
(ISP)-based addresses, or demonstrates
a plan to advertise the
prefixes within 3 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 or
fabricated multi-homing
information in order to fulfil the criteria
of eligibility.
Disadvantages:
There is no known disadvantage
of this proposal.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
No impact on existing resource
holders.
7. References
-------------
* 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