Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments - prop-053: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /22

[Srinivas Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>]

Dear colleagues,

The APNIC Secretariat would like to clarify that if the proposal is
approved at each remaining stage of the policy development process, the
implementation would include an associated change in allocation criteria.

Two of the criteria for an initial allocation would be updated to show:

      - An  LIR must have used a /24 from their upstream provider or
        demonstrate an immediate need for a /24
      - An LIR must demonstrate a detailed plan for use of a /23 within
        a year

The remaining two criteria for initial allocations and the criteria for
subsequent IPv4 allocations would not be affected by this proposal.

The current initial allocation criteria are documented in Section 9.3 of
APNIC-86, 'Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia
Pacific region' at:

     http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.3

Regards
Sunny

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Srinivas Chendi                         email:       sunny@apnic.net
Policy Development Manager, APNIC       sip:    sunny@voip.apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                    phone:       +61 7 3858 3189
____________________________________________________________________




Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> An updated version of the policy proposal text that reflects the 
> consensus decision in the APNIC 25 Policy SIG and endorsement by the 
> APNIC Member Meeting is now available:
>
>      http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-053-v003.html
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> toshi
> ---
> Toshiyuki Hosaka
>
>
> Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
> > Dear Alastair, and David,
> >
> > Thank you for your comment. The Secretariat has contacted the author of 
> > the proposal to confirm the revised wording of the consensus version of 
> > proposal. We should have the revised version posted to the list within 
> > the next day or so. In the meantime, please feel free to provide 
> > feedback on the consensus element of version two of the proposal:
> >
> >     It is proposed that the minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed
> >     from /21 to /22.
> >
> > thanks
> > toshi
> > ---
> > Toshiyuki Hosaka
> >
> >
> > Alastair Johnson wrote (2008/03/04 15:22):
> > > David Woodgate wrote:
> > > > As a point of order, shouldn't the final call be made on a new 
> > > > version of the text that eliminates the references to fees and 
> > > > membership tiers, to reflect the changes made at the SIG meeting?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think a final call should be made on a version of the 
> > > > document that is known to be different from the agreed proposal.
> > > I agree with David.  The proposal needs to be updated to reflect the 
> > > outcome of the discussion last week.
> > >
> > > aj
> > > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management 
> > > policy           *
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > sig-policy mailing list
> > > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy