On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:50 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote: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.
Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has no intention of ever multi-homing.
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.
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.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:Actually the RFC makes this clear.There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as "BEST CURRENT PRACTICE". Please someone let me know if I've missed an obsolescence here.All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and should almost never happen". If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a departure from documented current best practice.5.1 Sample Cases* Single-homed site, single prefixA separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in anAS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-ing policy as the other customers of the site's serviceprovider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-ing information.This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as arepresentation of routing policy as opposed to some form ofadministrative use.In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may findit necessary to have a policy different from that of itsprovider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sitesrequire different routing policies than their parents. Becausethe AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.* Single-homed site, multiple prefixesAgain, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should beplaced in an AS of the site's provider.* Multi-homed siteHere multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixeswhich connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more thanone AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a networkmulti-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of asingle AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-sentation of policy and preference among the different serviceproviders.This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator shouldcreate its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensurethat it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routingprotocols, such as BGP4.--
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 Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:Owen,But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)?I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their upstream connectivity at any particular time.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)
What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need it?
> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they need one.
> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
>
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?
I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why they need one
ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
Owen
_______________________________________________
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