Re: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: So Long Last /8 and Thanks For All the Allocations

[Aled Morris via address-policy-wg]

I see new LIR applications are on the increase as we head towards full IPv4
depletion.  I suspect many are companies with existing LIR status opening
additional LIR accounts to obtain their /22.

I suppose this rate of new LIRs will slow dramatically in the new year when
there are no more IPv4 addresses to be had and in two years time, many of
these "secondary" LIRs will be shut and their resources transferred to the
owners' primary LIR accounts.

One thing that occurs to me is that all of this could represent a
significant slow down of funds into RIPE.  I hope they are taking this into
account in their financial planning, these "opportunist" LIRs bring in a
lot in membership fees.

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number

[Aled Morris via address-policy-wg]

Thank you Nikolas, Gert and everyone who contributed to this conversation.
It's good to check that we do all agree.

Aled

[address-policy-wg] Application for AS number

[Aled Morris via address-policy-wg]

Hi all

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?

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?

Aled