## It is NOT new version, just a reminder that this proposal will be discussed at APNIC 40
Version 3 of prop-113 was posted to the mailing list after Version 2 had failed to reach consensus at APNIC 39. It will be considered for consensus at APNIC 40.
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?
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 ³an organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed with provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multi-home within one month² (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.
- 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.
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.
Disadvantages:
There is no known disadvantage of this proposal.
6. Impact on resource holders -----------------------------