To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it is to do with flexibility.

I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenience of being able to add these things easily.

Lets say I was a company with a /23 and upstream into Telstra Only.  If I had my own ASN and was announcing to Telstra, then at any time I could add another ISP, IXP, direct peering without having to go apply for an ASN, reconfigure my network to bring the announcement in-house, etc. 

I also might want to maintain a single provider, but be able to migrate easily to another provider without having to rely on the providers to do the "right thing" while changing announcements between them.

I think this policy has VERY valid applications for many smaller entities to be able to have an ASN without having to be multi-homed either initially, or maintain that multi-homing.

As Randy used to say - Why do you have the right to tell me how to manage my network?  If I want to be multi-homed, or change my mind and not be, it is none of your damn business.

I think this policy change reflects the changing way for businesses to get online since APNIC has run out of IP's, and are often charging significant amounts of money - so people are going to APNIC directly - which they are entitled to do.  And being flexible and being able to change their circumstances is a more common thing nowadays.

If you want, suggest charging for ASN's... but don't tell networks how they should be connected at any time.

Btw... I am happy for this to apply ONLY to ASN4 and not ASN2.




...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
to just give up issuing visas.

It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
resources.  Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
the existing policies.


Regards,
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
<aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Guangliang for the update,
>
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
>> multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
>> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
>> Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is
>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>
>
> So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in
> place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
> numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3
> months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with
> the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification
> to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS
> to be peer with in future?
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui.
*              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