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.