Hi Erik, I like that idea ... sometimes it might help to ask questions to make some LIRs start reflecting what they are actually doing. (But to be honest I prefer a single LIR requesting 100 ASN over a single person opening 100 LIRs, to bypass that rule and gather some IP-V4 as "side-effect" ;) )
@Gert: you are absolutely right when pointing it out that 16bit actually are already excluded explicitly ... think I was still to (amster)damaged when writing my last mail ... sorry ;) BR Jens On 16.05.2015 14:17, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote: > Hi Jens, > > As we are talking about AS numbers and implicit about BGP .. Lets take the > following approach ... > > Ask the NCC to use a max-prefix kind of warning system in the hand-out / > provisioning software .. > > A 95% warning level at ( arbitrary number 100 AS nr's ). To start asking > questions on what the LIR is doing .. A full stop handing out at the 100% of > the $arbitrary-number ... And the NCC will have to manually increase the > number by another $amount. Same as every ISP does on an Internet Exchange > with $peer that trips their max-prefix number .... > > That can be implemented in the backend .. And the majority of the LIR's will > never trip the max-resource level .. But the ones that do .. Can be directed > to the IPRA's and provide additional insight on what the hell they think they > are doing ... And if they are not providing a sufficient use case that > satisfies the IPRA, their request to increase the $arbitraty-number won't be > increased ... So they can't request additional resources. > > This suggested deployment setup doesn't need to be put in stone in the > policy, but as a request to the NCC in the introduction or rationale .. To > keep the policy text clear and the NCC can reply to it in their IA .. > > Just my 2 cents ... > > Erik Bais. ( now a bit more awake that this morning ) ... > >> Op 16 mei 2015 om 12:26 heeft Opteamax GmbH <[email protected]> het volgende >> geschreven: >> >> Erik and all, >> >> I think your idea to exclude 16Bit ASN from the proposal brings us much >> closer to consensus. >> >> Nevertheless I think we should start discussing about how to "enhance" >> garbage collection, but this should IMHO not be part of discussion on >> _this_ proposal. >> >> BR Jens >> >>> On 16.05.2015 09:11, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote: >>> Hi Gert, >>> >>> There are a couple things that I keep reading and hearing in the discussion >>> here.. >>> >>> Run-out of 16 bit as's and garbage collection.. >>> >>> May I suggest to Job to look into the following to see if that would fit >>> his plan moving forward and is in line with what the community thinks is >>> acceptable. ( personally I don't have a specific preferrence ) >>> >>> Exclude the 16 bit AS's from the removal of the multihoming requirement. ( >>> so it stays as it is currently ) and ask the NCC to keep a close look on >>> the number of requested AS's per entity to avoid stockpiling and give them >>> the silent 'right' to question and stop abuse of what we are trying to >>> achieve here. Also the NCC should include resource garbage collection in >>> the ARC's and if that is not enough, report that to the community during >>> the ripe meeting ncc update. >>> >>> The above mentioned suggestion could bring us closer to consensus.. It is >>> not something I have a strong feeling about. It is a suggestion that one >>> can look at. >>> >>> Personally I would go for version 1 of the proposal, no limitations and in >>> addition ask the ncc to look close to any abusive behaviour. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Erik Bais >>> >>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>> >>>> Op 15 mei 2015 om 14:34 heeft Gert Doering <[email protected]> het volgende >>>> geschreven: >>>> >>>> Dear AP WG, >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:57:20PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >>>>> The Review Period for the proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming >>>>> Requirement for >>>>> AS Number Assignments" has been extended until 19 May 2015. >>>> >>>> So - we extended this to wait for the AGM decision on "charging for AS >>>> numbers". The AGM decided, and the clear majority decide to not introduce >>>> annual charges for AS numbers - my life would be easier otherwise, but >>>> this is what was decided, so respect it and see how we can achive our >>>> goals here :-) >>>> >>>> Feedback for this proposal so far was, if I simplify a bit >>>> >>>> - we want to take care not to exhaust 16bit-ASNs >>>> - there is unlimited number of 32bit ASNs >>>> (but there *also* was feedback about "N. from I. could go out and >>>> register all 4 billion 32bit ASNs, and exhaust the system"... now what?) >>>> >>>> - we might want a garbage collection / reclamation mechanism >>>> >>>> - the current policy text is too complicate, arbitrary numbers are bad >>>> >>>> but there *is* quite a bit of support for the generic idea of "loosen up >>>> the rules for 32bit ASNs, as the multihoming requirement is often hard >>>> or impossible to demonstrate or check". >>>> >>>> So, what should we (or, more precise, the proposers) do to get there? >>>> >>>> Nick, I'm actually looking at you since you threw the most sand into the >>>> gears here... some specific suggestions how you'd tackle this would >>>> be welcome. >>>> >>>> (Technically, I see no other way than to change text and do another round >>>> of IA/review phase with the feedback we've received until now - if, based >>>> on the new background from AGM, everybody who has objected so far is now >>>> accepting this at it stands to go forward - please say so!) >>>> >>>> Gert Doering >>>> -- APWG chair >>>> -- >>>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >>>> >>>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >>>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >>>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >>>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team >> Jens Ott >> >> Opteamax GmbH >> >> Simrockstr. 4b >> 53619 Rheinbreitbach >> >> Tel.: +49 2224 969500 >> Fax: +49 2224 97691059 >> Email: [email protected] >> >> HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur >> Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 >> > > !DSPAM:637,55573b8463551901918004! > -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: [email protected] HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
