[sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibili

    • To: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
    • Subject: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
    • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com>
    • Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:24 -0800
    • 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:cc:content-type; bh=REK8joJiMvbHKhtUViOA6nkPMOMZqdjsUqW4rr+q5eY=; b=zSRSa6+MVo/EUwePvER5PmcjfqPZh74FftoKndTfUhJkFzQiNnkW7fZRiq/NQVZPqv i7CBWujoRHpPaHJFaaMU6VgFvcu/Dh2CULTSQCJT4H2kzCeBlmHvWTkS8c30ObAFYOMf pZKU1dlSe7cJHljKwZflbeUXjHa7H7B5WYlm8tu8uwZoBGvLNSP+o6UMhUvqtLdhL7Tx KFuczpnppu8H6T84H9HiHha2gvHIs9bqe17T0oIcV7OuaR9mmrb+FM65wsw/zYnd/D66 wIgx9RGuSe4KCa2T8w+ZtNZXK/O0leeaN+UdSu+RKbRVH7XRdzU+eKjeUcYpH1cEVJLq wYVA==
    • 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

        A new version of the proposal “prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 
        eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

        Information about earlier versions is available from:

        You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

         - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
         - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
         - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

        Please find the text of the proposal below.

        Kind Regards,


        prop-113-v002: 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 applicants must meet one criteria 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

            There is no multi-homing requirement

            There is no multi-homing requirement.

            Applicant can either have multi-homing requirement or interconnect.

            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 

            - currently utilising provider (ISP) assignment of at least a /24,
            - intends to be multi-homed 

            - intends to be multi-homed


            - advertise the prefixes within 6 months

        5. Advantages / Disadvantages


            Simplifies the process of applying for IPv4 address space for small
            delegations and delays the immediate requirement for multi-homing as
            determined to be appropriate within the timeframe as detailed in
            Section 3.3.


            There is no known disadvantage of this proposal.

        6. Impact on resource holders

            No impact on existing resource holders.