[sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 el

    • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
    • Subject: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
    • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com>
    • Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:56:46 -0600
    • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=MgMUwafDxG8F+lS2acJK9SGJYeMwHLJE72JqHAhA1CM=; b=yKgzvJh73BWEZ4iYtDTzTRFGx3IoRF7jjx7fFevSgRr2pG273XT/+3hJQuidYdKr+E /hMBVPDL/kVn9imiy8QOptFzEnPaCPFo/csO4inZzB/oBJ2nJNmm0GSp0LoYCH6xeYGj +XB7avtUESsWiG+cf0rxMDQBAMmblp09Yd78ShXl21wEpyEv4pUrWG9eOpIAhzHeOdEl JMQvjR2pr188pagTVjqL27kmP1dfQVf1LlGsLp7x1I58sVdRSGC29IqYgsyxc5zRxC0T x8GppZ63uBzNjlziJFotJ0Uh4F8nlSvr9K2JZ5y9a8/90Ad0ZZbpcBQc+CRWwhVpJ3hN OxsA==
    • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
    • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
    • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
    • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
    • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
      • 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 at gmail dot com

                        Skeeve Stevens
                        skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot 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
        -------------