[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: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:14:35 +0900
    • 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=6Bpxjv+zQJ6lZiEPcsGwsK7srM8FgXx7GISVl9Avycg=; b=vRZRV5FUKAGp03vJjWJ1i0HwUvevB+G/VSLhAIm5v7ZXe4JZzSj+A6SyicvLmDBOVF CVGFSFee0DAc34cU6mSepB5PYIiw4WZ6jQNXhQnqLPyeLysNVJao6wQShNC6aRLhb+0v epvq39f6rsYe9nXXcMcBGZFiQoifWW/zFdsF9hxIewOyDKCgmheaH/5e7ul1kTVahVOv ABgBwbvs/ii2wIjRWVx2wcR6mGB/2zSNzhKRJw/r3TNdnX5xEk4l9ZCiZUVOFSandX/2 nWHPi0evYobk1qIEfQnVlhWSkO/UPhrOnkOVOPKScntT2aWhFRD6mY0ID5lP0G3GcFML O2dA==
    • 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-v003: 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, OR
            - currently utilising provider (ISP) assignment of at least a /24,
              AND intends to be multi-homed, OR

            - intends to be multi-homed, AND advertise the prefixes within 
              6 months

            Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms must
            demonstrate that they are able to use 25% of the requested addresses
            immediately and 50% within one year.

        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.