------------------------------------------------------------
prop-113-v001: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria
------------------------------------------------------------

Proposer:       Aftab Siddiqui
                aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com

                Skeeve Stevens
                skeeve@eintellegonetworks.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
-------------