Dean,
You are quoting an RFC from 1996 (19 years ago)? What next, the Old Testament? Thou shalt be multi-homed?
I don't think this RFC ever envisioned the IP runout and that networks hosted by businesses themselves (of any size) would need multi-homing and in the reading of this, you could make an argument that no-one needs an ASN and that all their upstreams could host their portable space for them.
IP runout was well and truly known to be coming more than 20 years ago. That’s one of the reasons IPv6 was developed so long ago.
Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has no intention of ever multi-homing.
Yes you are. You may not intend to suggest that, but your policy proposal wording certainly provides for it.
I am wanting to policy to reflect that if a network operator wants to design their network for multi-homing, that they should be able to, with no requirement to immediately multi-home. At no point did I say 'never' multi-home, or no intention of multi-homing.... the intention should be there.
Then propose a policy that does that. The current draft doesn’t. If it has sufficient safeguards against turning the ASN registry into a Pez dispenser, then I will support it.
I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
Nobody is objecting to that. However, that’s not a letter of the law interpretation of what you have proposed.
Owen