Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructureassign
On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
[…]
>> Currently final /8 policy ONLY allow allocations, so even if there are enough space in 203.119/16 when we enter final /8,
>> critical infrastructure users still have no way to justify their needs using '11.3 Critical Infrastructure Policy',
>> o.k. If you say so. Although originally that wasn't my interpretation of the effect of prop-62-v002. But it seems as written to be the case.
>
> Yes, that wasn't my interpretation either, but from the policy text, this is the case.
I am not so sure that CI assignments have to stop when APNIC is down to its last /8. The policy text says:
"9.10 Distribution of the final /8 worth of space in the unallocated APNIC IPv4 address pool
When the total remaining space in the unallocated APNIC address pool reaches a threshold of a total of one /8, the following policies will come into force.
9.10.1 Allocations to LIRs
Each APNIC account holder will be eligible to request and receive a single allocation from the remaining /8 worth of space, with the following conditions:
• Each allocation will consist of the minimum IPv4 allocation size
• The account holder must meet the criteria for receiving an IPv4 allocation specified in one of the following sections of this policy document:
• 9.3 Criteria for initial allocation
• 9.4 Criteria for subsequent allocations
All APNIC account holders are eligible to receive only one allocation from the final /8 worth of address space. This applies to both current and future account holders."
This text does not state that the policy in section 11.3 on critical infrastructure no longer applies. As such, presumably all the policies supported in section 11 (Small multihoming assignments, Internet Exchange Points and Critical infrastructure) would still be in force.
In essence, the policy in section 9.10.1 creates a policy for allocations to LIRs and does not revoke the policies for assignments to end user organizations.
If my interpretation of the text is wrong I would urge the community to improve the wording to make the meaning clearer.
Regards,