[sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

  • To: "Policy SIG" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN
  • From: "Bertrand Cherrier" <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:14:34 +1100
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=micrologic.nc; s=mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From; bh=U9XQbTA4jQLxpcVhmfrFsre8Jw5vIC8Z3Y122sewwQ0=; b=mi6s2dzckwgOOISpM1XULcdHogazs+GnQlzOn0jHdvf1mqQ2CD0asLZvRkOFGk8O5JxAi1E5OxsiEaUIgiBhGOPJB6J1LYSKGB9r6ER4HFgi2vfqylGBgZo9SMZEi5/PBDTzzMT75tNSz+YpXyLk7ASQOAEjiBYw1N5maEsWzrw=;
  • 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: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

    • Dear SIG members,

      The proposal "prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN" has been
      sent to the Policy SIG for review.

      It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 47 in
      Daejeon, South Korea on Wednesday, 27 February 2019.

      We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
      before the meeting.

      The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
      important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
      express your views on the proposal:

      • Do you support or oppose this proposal?
      • Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
      • Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
      • Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
      • What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

      Information about this proposal is available at:

       http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-128
      

      Regards

      Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


      prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN


      Proposers: Jordi Palet Martínez
      jordi.palet@theipv6company.com

      1. Problem Statement

      When the ASN assignment policy was originally designed, the reliability
      of networks was not so good as today. So, at that time, it was making
      sense to make sure that and ASN holder is multihomed.

      However, today this is not necessarily a reasonable requirement, and
      even in some cases, some networks may require an ASN and not willing
      to be multihomed (because the cost, or remote locations that have only
      a single upstream, etc.), and their SLA requirements don’t need that
      redundancy.

      The deployment of IPv6 also increase the need for organizations which
      are not ISPs, to obtain IPv6 PI in order to have stable addresses,
      and in that situation, ideally, they should announce their PI space
      with their own ASN. In most cases, they don’t have to be multihomed.

      2. Objective of policy change

      To ensure that organizations which have their own routing policy and
      the need to interconnect with other organizations, can do it.

      Interconnect is used here with the commonly understood meaning of
      establishing a connection between two (administratively) separate
      networks.

      3. Situation in other regions

      ARIN and LACNIC don’t require multihoming. RIPE requires it. AfriNIC has
      a policy equivalent to APNIC, but I’m submitting a proposal similar to
      this one to change it as well as in the case of RIPE.

      4. Proposed policy solution

      Current Policy text

      12.1. Evaluation of eligibility

      An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if:
      - it is currently multihomed, or
      - it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space and
      intends to multihome in the future.

      An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will
      meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably
      short time thereafter).

      Requests for ASNs under these criteria will be evaluated using the
      guidelines described in RFC1930 'Guidelines for the creation, selection
      and registration of an Autonomous System' (AS).

      Proposed text

      12.1. Evaluation of eligibility

      An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if:
      - it is multihomed or
      - has the need to interconnect with other AS.

      An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will
      meet any
      of the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably
      short time thereafter).

      Requests for ASNs under these criteria will be evaluated using the
      guidelines described in RFC1930 'Guidelines for the creation, selection
      and registration of
      an Autonomous System' (AS).

      5. Advantages / Disadvantages

      Advantages:
      Fulfilling the objectives above indicated.

      Disadvantages:
      None foreseen.

      6. Impact on resource holders

      None.

      7. References

      https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five
      https://www.lacnic.net/683/2/lacnic/
      https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679