[sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-128: Multihomingnot required for A SN
Dear colleagues
Version 1 of prop-128: Multihoming not required for ASN, reached
consensus at the APNIC 47 Open Policy Meeting and later at the APNIC
Annual General Meeting (AGM).
This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
for the final Comment Period.
- Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Thursday, 28 March 2019
Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to previous versions are available at:
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-128/
Regards
Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
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