• Date Prev
• Date Next
• Thread Prev
• Thread Next
• Date Index
• Thread Index

Re: [sig-policy] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

• To: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com>
• Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria to be discussed at APNIC 40
• From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
• Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:24:43 -0700
• Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
• Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
• In-reply-to: <CALcH-8mehfLZQnWemQ7NghpzSWJt42v528JCMJdsYyP+b29QSA@mail.gmail.com>
• List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
• List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
• List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
• List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
• List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
• List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

On Aug 7, 2015, at 02:34 , Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com> wrote: Dear SIG members ## It is NOT new version, just a reminder that this proposal will be discussed at APNIC 40  Version 3 of this proposal was posted to the mailing list during APNIC 39. The proposal did not reach consensus and discussion will continue at APNIC 40. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Masato ----------------------------------------------------------- prop-114-v003: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria ----------------------------------------------------------- Proposer:      Aftab Siddiqui                aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com                Skeeve Stevens                skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com 1. Problem statement --------------------    The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and    that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The    policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and    clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously,    this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy.    As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information    to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still    have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change -----------------------------    In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to    modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN    assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- ARIN:     It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN This is misleading. In ARIN you must meet one of the two criteria: Multihome Unique Routing Policy So it is optional to be multi-homed _IF_ you have a unique routing policy. RIPE:     Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion     and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision)     Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC:     Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC:     It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if:     - they are currently multi-homed, OR     - have previous allocated provider independent address space by       APNIC, AND intend to multi-home in the future I support this as written, though I would recommend adding: …, OR - have a unique routing policy Examples where Unique Routing Policy may be necessary include things like transit marketplaces where you may select only a single provider for transit and may not peer with more than one provider at any given time, but you still have a unique routing policy and are (potentially) changing providers more frequently than could be rationally facilitated without BGP and an ASN. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages:     By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC     Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions     based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid     request. Disadvantages:     It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain     ASN¹s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN¹s     in the region.  Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with     Œwork around¹ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have     any effect. 6. Impact on resource holders -----------------------------     No impact on existing resource holders. Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next Date Index Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next Date Index Thread Index Prev by Date: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB Previous by Thread: [sig-policy] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria to be discussed at APNIC 40 Index(es): Date Thread