Hi, On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 01:18:14PM +0100, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg wrote: > I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and > resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS > guidelines RIPE-679, specifically: > > *A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.* > > The application for an AS number has been delayed because the NCC analyst > working on the ticket is claiming the ISP has to be *already multihomed* > before an AS can be issued. > > This interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. Surely the intention *to > become multihomed* should be the requirement for obtaining an AS number?
Speaking as WG participant and long time LIR contact, this sounds funny
indeed. And none of my AS requests so far have been for networks that
were *already* multihomed (because, well, how can you be without an
AS number...).
> I don't even see how you can be properly multihomed if you don't have an AS
> number. Are we supposed to implement some kind of NAT multihoming first?
>
> Can we look to change the wording in RIPE-679 to make this clear?
Now, speaking as WG chair, we can just toss the ball at Marco/Andrea
from the NCC RS department and ask them to comment on this, and whether
this is an issue of policy wording, misunderstanding, or possibly
miscommunication (language barriers...).
We can also spend some time at the next meeting to discuss this in
the WG meeting - that's what our time is for, have face to face chats
to clarify intentions, interpretations, and possibly ways forward...
Gert Doering
-- multi-hatted individual
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
