Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

I see, understood Gaurab and Skeeve it's not just a case of Pakistan.

Would it accomodate the situation if the criteria is revised as below?

 a. Mutlihomed/plan to be multihomed in the near future OR
 b. A single homed but is/plans to be connected by BGP with upstream if
wit justification of why an ASN is needed for such network

Put it in the guidelines that a case such asit is expected that an
applicant's environment of connectivity leads  to the needs to
constantly change upstreams can be a reason to justify b.

I haven't talked to operators from Japan about this so would also
welcome their feedback (or anyone else offcourse!) if this is likely to
creat issues.


Izumi


On 2015/03/04 14:15, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Yes, this is the same in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, etc.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
> 
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> 
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> 
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
> 
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya 
> wrote:
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 3/3/15 6:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>
>>> * Case of Pakistan It was helpful to hear about the case of
>>> Pakistan from Aftab, if I understood it correctly, wishes to be
>>> able to switch upstreams easily to ensure adequate service will be
>>> provided. It was felt that those needs should be tolerated and find
>>> ways to address it, questions were raised whether we should change
>>> the general criteria to address an indivisual case like this.
>>
>> I don't think this is specific to Pakistan. It's applicable across the
>> board in the region. Carriers like to keep their customers captive
>> everywhere, just the level of professionalism varies.
>>
>> - -gaurab
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAlT2lBgACgkQSo7fU26F3X2WXwCdF/dMBs+qYwEKVTeuUckJWF/5
>> TXIAn3rhAF1IKhNbHv++a+IK/RMr8nLP
>> =YrfM
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
> 

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Yes, this is the same in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, etc.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya 
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 3/3/15 6:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>
> > * Case of Pakistan It was helpful to hear about the case of
> > Pakistan from Aftab, if I understood it correctly, wishes to be
> > able to switch upstreams easily to ensure adequate service will be
> > provided. It was felt that those needs should be tolerated and find
> > ways to address it, questions were raised whether we should change
> > the general criteria to address an indivisual case like this.
>
> I don't think this is specific to Pakistan. It's applicable across the
> board in the region. Carriers like to keep their customers captive
> everywhere, just the level of professionalism varies.
>
> - -gaurab
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlT2lBgACgkQSo7fU26F3X2WXwCdF/dMBs+qYwEKVTeuUckJWF/5
> TXIAn3rhAF1IKhNbHv++a+IK/RMr8nLP
> =YrfM
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 3/3/15 6:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:

> * Case of Pakistan It was helpful to hear about the case of
> Pakistan from Aftab, if I understood it correctly, wishes to be
> able to switch upstreams easily to ensure adequate service will be
> provided. It was felt that those needs should be tolerated and find
> ways to address it, questions were raised whether we should change
> the general criteria to address an indivisual case like this.

I don't think this is specific to Pakistan. It's applicable across the
board in the region. Carriers like to keep their customers captive
everywhere, just the level of professionalism varies.

- -gaurab

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAlT2lBgACgkQSo7fU26F3X2WXwCdF/dMBs+qYwEKVTeuUckJWF/5
TXIAn3rhAF1IKhNbHv++a+IK/RMr8nLP
=YrfM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi all,


I discussed with some folks from Japan who are here at APRICOT and would
like to share a couple of observations:

* ASN assignments to those with portable assignments
 - Support from a number of people on ASN assignments to those
   with portable assignments is noted.
 - Howver, it is felt that it's better to set the criteria which is
   specific to ASN, not to make it dependent with portable assignment.
 - You don't know whether future changes in criteria for portable
   assighments will make sense as criteria for ASN assignments.

* Case of Pakistan
It was helpful to hear about the case of Pakistan from Aftab, if I
understood it correctly, wishes to be able to switch upstreams easily to
ensure adequate service will be provided. It was felt that those needs
should be tolerated and find ways to address it, questions were raised
whether we should change the general criteria to address an indivisual
case like this.

The feedback so far is let's think of ways to address those specific
indivisual cases with issues, but if the current criteria works for most
other people, we shouldn't adjust the default criteria for specific
indivisual cases. This should be addressed seperately.

* Questions raised on its implication
Looking at this from the situation in Japan, it may lead to a situation
where some large ISPs may start applying more ASNs for the ease of its
operation, for exapmple, applying for over 10 ASNs, or local CATV
providers connected under group company's ASN may start applying  even
though they are able to operate today without global ASNs.

We may not need to worry about 4bite ASN pool but may have implications
on routing, especially if path validation gets more deployed in the future.

* A suggestion
An idea has been suggested to keep the multihoming criteria but not make
it a must to be multihomed if an applicant can provide justification for
the need for an ASN. There should still be a minimum criteria such as an
applicant has BGP connection with its upstream, to need an ASN. To give
rough guidance to APNIC and NIR hostmasters, give specific example of
needs which has already being identified in the guidelines document.

 e.g.
 It is expected that an applicant's environment of connectivity leads
 to the needs to constantly change upstreams with reasons explained


We have defined IPv6 distribution policy in a similar manner, withough
changing the criteria which applies to most people. Specific cases are
described in the guidelines.

What are the thoughts from the propers and others about this suggestion?


Izumi


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Sanjeev Gupta]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Scott Leibrand 
wrote:

>
> See criterion #3 at https://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/02/2-byte-asn-run-out/
> for a brief explanation of why 2-byte ASNs are still preferred for IXP
> peering.
>

Scott, thank you.  I was looking only at the other peer, and its equipment,
supporting 4byte.  As we are not using communities (small operator, here),
I did not remember that use case.

-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Scott Leibrand]

Sanjeev,

See criterion #3 at https://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/02/2-byte-asn-run-out/ for a 
brief explanation of why 2-byte ASNs are still preferred for IXP peering. 

Scott

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Sanjeev Gupta  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Woodgate  wrote:
>> 
>> So I feel that:
>> - 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing checks 
>> removed;
> 
> OK.  I agree with the reasoning that ASNs are not scarce.  But see below.
>  
>> - Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be charged 
>> as a disincentive for frivolous requests.
> 
> Any fees would be too high for small operators, and trivially low for someone 
> with a /15
>  
>> - Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per 
>> account;
>> 
>> - Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per 
>> account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per AS 
>> per year.
> 
> One ASN free for each /24 allocated?  This means we will at worst 
> "over-allocate" 0.4% of all ASN space
>  
>> - Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs
> 
> I do not understand this.  Why are 2byte ASNs special?  Is there new 
> equipment being deployed that needs 2-byte ASNs?  Is this a prestige thing?  
> 
> (Serious question): Why would an operator prefer a 2byte over a 4byte?  I do 
> not type in my ASN very often.  
> 
> -- 
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Sanjeev Gupta]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Woodgate 
wrote:

>
> So I feel that:
> - 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing checks
> removed;
>

OK.  I agree with the reasoning that ASNs are not scarce.  But see below.


> - Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be charged
> as a disincentive for frivolous requests.
>

Any fees would be too high for small operators, and trivially low for
someone with a /15


> - Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per
> account;
>
> - Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per
> account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per AS
> per year.
>

One ASN free for each /24 allocated?  This means we will at worst
"over-allocate" 0.4% of all ASN space


> - Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs


I do not understand this.  Why are 2byte ASNs special?  Is there new
equipment being deployed that needs 2-byte ASNs?  Is this a prestige
thing?

(Serious question): Why would an operator prefer a 2byte over a 4byte?  I
do not type in my ASN very often.

-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[David Woodgate]

I support the concept that AS number allocation rules should be relaxed, 
but I think further work is required to properly define the residual 
criteria for allocation.


Having read the past month's discussion about prop-114, I'll make some 
observations:


Let's not treat 4 billion (4-byte) AS numbers as precious. They're only 
route attributes, and not actual routes, and they can only be used with 
BGP routing, so their utility is high restricted, and their potential 
for direct abuse limited. (Large numbers of AS numbers by themselves 
don't explode routing tables, for example.)


If we consume 10,000 per year globally, then it will be 400,000 years 
before we exhaust the space - so I think we can afford some waste. We 
also only allocate AS numbers as individual numbers, and not as blocks 
of thousands or millions in the way we did for IPv4, and so greatly 
reducing the chance for massive waste.


We could argue back and forth what constitutes "appropriate" use of an 
AS number, but I see limited value in doing so given the enormous space 
now available (for 4-byte ASs); I feel the pragmatics outweigh the 
principles here.


I therefore believe it is not worth the Hostmasters' time (and therefore 
the members' money) to make onerous checks on whether AS numbers are 
being or will be used in a "suitable" way. I'd rather see fees charged 
to put the onus on the requester to decide whether they really needed 
the AS. A cap on the number of ASs per account could also be imposed if 
considered warranted.


So I feel that:
- 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing 
checks removed;


- Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be 
charged as a disincentive for frivolous requests.


- Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per 
account;


- Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per 
account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per 
AS per year.


- Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs


Regards,

David Woodgate


On 4/02/2015 4:57 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:

Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

It  will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.

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-114


Regards,

Masato





---
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
---

Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddi...@gmail.com 

  Skeeve Stevens
ske...@eintellegonetworks.com 


1. Problem statement


The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria
and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy
seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly
defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has
created much confusion in interpreting the policy.

As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information
to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying.


2. Objective of policy change
-

In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to
modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN
assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the organization.


3. Situation in other regions
-

ARIN:
It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN

RIPE:
Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion
and the current phase ends 12 February 2015
Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03

LACNIC:
only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing

AFRINIC:
 It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN.


4. Proposed policy solution
---

An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
 - Is planning to use it within next 6 months


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-

Advantages:

Removing t

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 08:07, David Farmer wrote:
> If IPv6 PI allocations gets too liberal, the routing system as we know it 
> will implode long before we allocate 4.2 billion ASNs.  Restricting the 
> number of ASNs in use in the routing system isn't really going to help that 
> much.  The total number of prefixes, PA or PI, has been the primary limiting 
> factor historically.  Limiting the portability of PI prefixes by not 
> allocating ASNs won't save the routing system.  Only ensuring that the growth 
> in the number of prefixes, both PA and PI, is sustainable and doesn't exceed 
> the growth in the prefix limit for the typical router in use in the Internet 
> at any point in time will keep the current routing system going.

My lack of support of being willy-nilly with ASN allocations has nothing
to do with the state (or decline) of routing system. It's not IP
addresses' or ASN's fault that the community de-aggregates the way it does.

So while this is a valid concern, it does not take away from the fact
that ASN's are finite, and IMHO, should not be allocated linearly with
PI space "just because".

If there is policy that supports linear allocation between PI and ASN
resources that makes sense, I'm more than happy to support such policy.
As of now, there isn't such policy, and without such policy, current
policy is good enough.
>
> We need a new kind of routing system, we've known that for a while.  But that 
> is not a policy issues for the RIRs, that is a technology issues for the IETF 
> and the IRTF.  I think things like LISP and ILNP are promising in the long 
> run.  We just have to keep the current routing system going until those 
> technologies can prove themselves.  We do that by keeping total prefix growth 
> sustainable, not by limiting portability of PI prefixes.

This ties back to what I was saying about, in general, getting the RIR
and operational community to develop policies, together, which track
practical day-to-day experiences about running IP networks. But that is
a discussion for another thread, or as we shall experiment, which
operators get involved in the policy development process.

Mark.

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[David Farmer]

>> On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:28, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> 
>> On 28/Feb/15 03:08, David Farmer wrote:
>> 
>> If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing
>> requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally
>> anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling.  I'm
>> suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for
>> an ASN.  The PI assignment and what every justified that should also
>> equally justify the need for ASN assignment.  The PI assignment was
>> intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to
>> facilitate that portability.  I'm saying that the need for portability
>> is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing.
> 
> True, PI is meant to be portable, which is fine for IPv6 because we have
> a lot of address space.
> 
> But don't you worry that you will blow through 4.2 billion ASN's soon if
> PI allocation policy evolves to become liberal that 4.2 billion PI
> allocations become a reality?
> 
> Mark.

If IPv6 PI allocations gets too liberal, the routing system as we know it will 
implode long before we allocate 4.2 billion ASNs.  Restricting the number of 
ASNs in use in the routing system isn't really going to help that much.  The 
total number of prefixes, PA or PI, has been the primary limiting factor 
historically.  Limiting the portability of PI prefixes by not allocating ASNs 
won't save the routing system.  Only ensuring that the growth in the number of 
prefixes, both PA and PI, is sustainable and doesn't exceed the growth in the 
prefix limit for the typical router in use in the Internet at any point in time 
will keep the current routing system going.

We need a new kind of routing system, we've known that for a while.  But that 
is not a policy issues for the RIRs, that is a technology issues for the IETF 
and the IRTF.  I think things like LISP and ILNP are promising in the long run. 
 We just have to keep the current routing system going until those technologies 
can prove themselves.  We do that by keeping total prefix growth sustainable, 
not by limiting portability of PI prefixes.

-- 
===
David Farmer  Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: +1-612-812-9952
===


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 03:56, Sanjaya Sanjaya wrote:
> HI Dean, here's the finding. Mind you I spoke mostly to existing members. we 
> should probably ask prospective members too.
>
> - Not all ISP provides (or those who do only do so very selectively) BGP 
> connection service
> - Lack of carrier neutral IXPs in some economies
> - Limited networking knowledge and skills

All of which are normal states of the Internet.

Mark.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 03:08, David Farmer wrote:
>  
>
> If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing
> requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally
> anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling.  I'm
> suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for
> an ASN.  The PI assignment and what every justified that should also
> equally justify the need for ASN assignment.  The PI assignment was
> intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to
> facilitate that portability.  I'm saying that the need for portability
> is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing.

True, PI is meant to be portable, which is fine for IPv6 because we have
a lot of address space.

But don't you worry that you will blow through 4.2 billion ASN's soon if
PI allocation policy evolves to become liberal that 4.2 billion PI
allocations become a reality?

Mark.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Sanjaya Sanjaya]

HI Dean, here's the finding. Mind you I spoke mostly to existing members. we 
should probably ask prospective members too.

- Not all ISP provides (or those who do only do so very selectively) BGP 
connection service
- Lack of carrier neutral IXPs in some economies
- Limited networking knowledge and skills

Cheers,
Sanjaya

-Original Message-
From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz] 
Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015 10:57 AM
To: Sanjaya Sanjaya
Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the 
ASN eligibility criteria

Thanks Sanjaya

The last slide asks some questions.
What were the answers from the audiences you were presenting to?


--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd 
> like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the 
> Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it 
> highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe 
> and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or 
> should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. 
> We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Sanjaya
> ---
> Deputy Director General, APNIC
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

So it's back to what I said originally.  You're claiming that an ASN
is required in order to be a fully fledged member of the PI utilising
community.
You're also claiming that an ASN isn't an operational element anymore,
that it's more like a license to be able to use PI space to it's
fullest extend.

If it is true, then the only sensible way forward is to allocate them
as you become a community member.

So we're back to "Become an APNIC member, get an ASN"

Is that really what people are saying and is it really a sensible thing here?





--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:08 AM, David Farmer  wrote:
> On 2/27/15 17:41 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Don't allocated one if they don't want one.  But if they want one, and
>>> they
>>> already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no?  And its not
>>> regardless
>>> of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need.
>>>
>>
>> Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done.
>
>
> Sorry, let me try one more time.
>
>> What you are suggesting *IS* regardless of need, and thats what I
>> think people are missing.
>> If you are not required to demonstrate need to get something, then it
>> is allocated regardless of need.
>> I realise this might seem semantic, but policy is all about semantics.
>
>
> On this we agree.
>
>> This 'anticipation of future need' stuff is at best ethereal and at
>> worst a fallacy.  Lets not forget that there is an almost zero barrier
>> to entry with regard to ASN allocation should the member require one.
>> I just don't subscribe to this "I may one day require one so give it
>> to me now"
>
>
> If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing
> requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally anticipatory
> and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling.  I'm suggesting that
> multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for an ASN.  The PI
> assignment and what every justified that should also equally justify the
> need for ASN assignment.  The PI assignment was intended to be portable,
> also assigning an ASN simply is intended to facilitate that portability.
> I'm saying that the need for portability is also a need for an ASN, if you
> look beyond multi-homing.
>
>> It's the same as saying "I don't require an IPv6 allocation today, but
>> I anticipate that at some point I'll need a /10.  Just give it all to
>> me now so that I don't have to make difficult design decisions later."
>>
>> If everyone gets one then I can live with that.  What I can't live
>> with is opening up a can of worms with a "I might one day need
>> something so please allocate it now".  It's a dangerous slippery
>> slope.Today ASNs, Tomorrow IPv4, next day IPv6.
>
>
> It's not that I only might need it, in my opinion it is fundamentally
> necessary to fulfill the portability of the PI assignment.  No need to move
> the assignment within the routing system, no need for portability and no
> need for an ASN.  But, if you make a PI assignment without allowing me an
> ASN you've limited its portability and the useability for its intended
> purpose.  Making a PI assignment implies to me, it can be picked up and
> moved within the routing system, assigning an ASN is needed to facilitate
> that movement.
>
> However, looked at through the lens of multi-homing, portability itself is
> only a future need.  You have to look beyond multi-homing, not abandon the
> idea of need, to understand what I'm trying say.
>
> But, I probably only dug the whole deeper. :) So, I'll stop now.
>
>
> --
> 
> David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> 
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[David Farmer]

On 2/27/15 17:41 , Dean Pemberton wrote:

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer  wrote:



Don't allocated one if they don't want one.  But if they want one, and they
already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no?  And its not regardless
of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need.



Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done.


Sorry, let me try one more time.


What you are suggesting *IS* regardless of need, and thats what I
think people are missing.
If you are not required to demonstrate need to get something, then it
is allocated regardless of need.
I realise this might seem semantic, but policy is all about semantics.


On this we agree.


This 'anticipation of future need' stuff is at best ethereal and at
worst a fallacy.  Lets not forget that there is an almost zero barrier
to entry with regard to ASN allocation should the member require one.
I just don't subscribe to this "I may one day require one so give it
to me now"


If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing 
requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally 
anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling.  I'm 
suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for 
an ASN.  The PI assignment and what every justified that should also 
equally justify the need for ASN assignment.  The PI assignment was 
intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to 
facilitate that portability.  I'm saying that the need for portability 
is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing.



It's the same as saying "I don't require an IPv6 allocation today, but
I anticipate that at some point I'll need a /10.  Just give it all to
me now so that I don't have to make difficult design decisions later."

If everyone gets one then I can live with that.  What I can't live
with is opening up a can of worms with a "I might one day need
something so please allocate it now".  It's a dangerous slippery
slope.Today ASNs, Tomorrow IPv4, next day IPv6.


It's not that I only might need it, in my opinion it is fundamentally 
necessary to fulfill the portability of the PI assignment.  No need to 
move the assignment within the routing system, no need for portability 
and no need for an ASN.  But, if you make a PI assignment without 
allowing me an ASN you've limited its portability and the useability for 
its intended purpose.  Making a PI assignment implies to me, it can be 
picked up and moved within the routing system, assigning an ASN is 
needed to facilitate that movement.


However, looked at through the lens of multi-homing, portability itself 
is only a future need.  You have to look beyond multi-homing, not 
abandon the idea of need, to understand what I'm trying say.


But, I probably only dug the whole deeper. :) So, I'll stop now.

--

David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Thanks Sanjaya

The last slide asks some questions.
What were the answers from the audiences you were presenting to?


--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd 
> like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the 
> Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it 
> highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe 
> and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or 
> should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. 
> We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Sanjaya
> ---
> Deputy Director General, APNIC
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Excellent, thank you Sanjaya for that.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd
> like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the
> Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it
> highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe
> and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or
> should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide.
> We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Sanjaya
> ---
> Deputy Director General, APNIC
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 02:02, Sanjaya Sanjaya wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd 
> like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the 
> Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it 
> highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe 
> and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or 
> should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. 
> We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!

I think this highlights the issue in question - there need not be any
linear relationship between IP addressing and ASN routing. Service
providers (and end users) simply care about being online. The biggest
issue around that is how devices can be uniquely addressed on the
Internet, more so for China given how many they are as a populace, and
how many IPv4 addresses are (not) left for them to chew on.

If a service provider can fix their most pressing issue, which is a lack
of IP addresses, that might rate higher in priority than needing an ASN
if they do not necessarily have a need to define their routing policy
separate from their ISP's or the rest of the Internet.

My concern with issuing an ASN to anyone that obtains PI space is that
PI space can be obtained both by service providers and non-service
providers. Are we saying that a mom-and-pop shop that qualifies for PI
should also get an ASN? If, for some reason, technology suggests that
every mobile phone needs PI space because we've got tons of it in IPv6,
and RIR policy is updated to cover such use-cases, suddenly, 4.2 billion
ASN's does not seem like a lot anymore.

I suppose the issue here is that as many billions as the resources are,
they are still finite. We do not know what might increase their rate of
take-up in the future, but if history is anything to go by, the
opportunity is always there. So allocating ASN's "just because" is
something I do not support, as an up & coming enterprise that needs IPv6
PI space may not have a need to advertise their routing policy to the
Internet, because they are a simple shop who rely on their ISP for all
their routing.

Mark.

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

That's what we strive for.
Something for everyone :)



On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens 
wrote:

> That was bad planning :(. I was thinking of doing a lightening, but policy
> is more important.
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Dean Pemberton  > wrote:
>
>> We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning
>> talks on Thursday.
>> It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators.
>>
>> On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen  wrote:
>>
>>> Owen,
>>>
>>> What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'?
>>>
>>> Jessica Shen
>>>
>>>
>>> > -原始邮件-
>>> > 发件人: "Owen DeLong" 
>>> > 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
>>> > 收件人: "Shen Zhi" 
>>> > 抄送: "Mark Tinka" , sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> > 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in
>>> the ASN eligibility criteria
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi  wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy
>>> processes is
>>> > > important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good
>>> > > ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed
>>> on the
>>> > > Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background
>>> instroductions
>>> > > by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar
>>> with the
>>> > > policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think
>>> it's a very good
>>> > > way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the
>>> discussion.
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the
>>> same days
>>> > > when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or
>>> Wednesday, will
>>> > > it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?
>>> >
>>> > That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would
>>> consider more interesting,
>>> > then probably not.
>>> >
>>> > If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might
>>> turn into shopping time, etc.
>>> >
>>> > As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than
>>> interest.
>>> >
>>> > Owen
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > > Jessica Shen
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >> -邮件原件-
>>> > >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
>>> > >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong
>>> > >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42
>>> > >> 收件人: Mark Tinka
>>> > >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> > >> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification
>>> in the
>>> > >> ASN eligibility criteria
>>> > >>
>>> > >> In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to
>>> any who
>>> > >> choose to participate.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The fact that operator participation in the process is limited
>>> (voluntarily by
>>> > >> the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for
>>> operators. This
>>> > >> not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other
>>> multi-stakeholder
>>> > >> fora covering various aspects of internet governance and
>>> development.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation
>>> in these
>>> > >> processes, I’m all ears.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Owen
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka 
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form
>>> needs
>>> > >>> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment
>>> > >>> between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented
>>> > 

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

That was bad planning :(. I was thinking of doing a lightening, but policy
is more important.

...Skeeve

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning
> talks on Thursday.
> It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators.
>
> On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen  > wrote:
>
>> Owen,
>>
>> What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'?
>>
>> Jessica Shen
>>
>>
>> > -原始邮件-
>> > 发件人: "Owen DeLong" 
>> > 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
>> > 收件人: "Shen Zhi" 
>> > 抄送: "Mark Tinka" , sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> > 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in
>> the ASN eligibility criteria
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy
>> processes is
>> > > important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good
>> > > ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on
>> the
>> > > Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background
>> instroductions
>> > > by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar
>> with the
>> > > policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think
>> it's a very good
>> > > way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion.
>> > >
>> > > I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the
>> same days
>> > > when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or
>> Wednesday, will
>> > > it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?
>> >
>> > That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would
>> consider more interesting,
>> > then probably not.
>> >
>> > If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn
>> into shopping time, etc.
>> >
>> > As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than
>> interest.
>> >
>> > Owen
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Jessica Shen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> -邮件原件-
>> > >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
>> > >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong
>> > >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42
>> > >> 收件人: Mark Tinka
>> > >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> > >> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in
>> the
>> > >> ASN eligibility criteria
>> > >>
>> > >> In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to
>> any who
>> > >> choose to participate.
>> > >>
>> > >> The fact that operator participation in the process is limited
>> (voluntarily by
>> > >> the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators.
>> This
>> > >> not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other
>> multi-stakeholder
>> > >> fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development.
>> > >>
>> > >> If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation
>> in these
>> > >> processes, I’m all ears.
>> > >>
>> > >> Owen
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form
>> needs
>> > >>> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment
>> > >>> between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented
>> > >>> issue that affects several other policies within various RIR
>> > >>> communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix
>> > >>> length and what operators filter against as an example.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR
>> operations
>> > >>> and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking
>> > >>> place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a
&

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done.

What you are suggesting *IS* regardless of need, and thats what I
think people are missing.
If you are not required to demonstrate need to get something, then it
is allocated regardless of need.
I realise this might seem semantic, but policy is all about semantics.

This 'anticipation of future need' stuff is at best ethereal and at
worst a fallacy.  Lets not forget that there is an almost zero barrier
to entry with regard to ASN allocation should the member require one.
I just don't subscribe to this "I may one day require one so give it
to me now"

It's the same as saying "I don't require an IPv6 allocation today, but
I anticipate that at some point I'll need a /10.  Just give it all to
me now so that I don't have to make difficult design decisions later."

If everyone gets one then I can live with that.  What I can't live
with is opening up a can of worms with a "I might one day need
something so please allocate it now".  It's a dangerous slippery
slope.Today ASNs, Tomorrow IPv4, next day IPv6.
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer  wrote:
> On 2/27/15 16:05 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> So a "maybe someday" ASN?
>>
>> So anyone who has PI space and doesn't already have an ASN gets
>> allocated one regardless of need.
>> Any new member who gets PI space gets an ASN allocated as a matter of
>> course.
>
>
> Don't allocated one if they don't want one.  But if they want one, and they
> already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no?  And its not regardless
> of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need.
>
> If someone gets an ASN, and uses it, when they get PI, they will have a much
> easier time porting to a new provider, or better yet, becoming multi-homed
> and/or participating in an IX in the future.
>
> So, don't force them to get an ASN, just don't force then wait until they
> multi-home their PI either.
>
>> Any additional ASN requested by a member must conform to existing policy.
>
>
> The exact wording of the current policy may or may not be right for the
> situation, but that is the basic idea.  Also, you should still be able to
> get an ASN to do PA multi-homing, if you are multi-homing with a cut-out
> from an upstream provider.
>
>> Is this where we're at?  Change the proposal and see where we get to.
>
>
> Yes, please.
>
>> Why not make it your APNIC membership number and be done with it :).
>> That lowers the barrier even further and means that people wouldn't need
>> assistance applying for them.
>
>
> That's silly, your APNIC Member number should just be your credit card
> number. :)
>
>
> --
> 
> David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> 
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Jessica Shen]

All right, let's have a look at that first.

Jessica Shen


-原始邮件-
发件人:"Dean Pemberton" 
发送时间:2015-02-28 06:40:11 (星期六)
收件人: "Jessica Shen" 
抄送: "Owen DeLong" , "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" 

主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN 
eligibility criteria

We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning talks 
on Thursday.
It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators. 

On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen  wrote:
Owen,

What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'?

Jessica Shen


> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "Owen DeLong" 
> 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
> 收件人: "Shen Zhi" 
> 抄送: "Mark Tinka" , sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in  the ASN 
> eligibility criteria
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi  wrote:
> >
> > Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes 
> > is
> > important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good
> > ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the
> > Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background 
> > instroductions
> > by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the
> > policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a 
> > very good
> > way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion.
> >
> > I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days
> > when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will
> > it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?
>
> That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider 
> more interesting,
> then probably not.
>
> If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into 
> shopping time, etc.
>
> As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest.
>
> Owen
>
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jessica Shen
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----邮件原件-
> >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong
> >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42
> >> 收件人: Mark Tinka
> >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the
> >> ASN eligibility criteria
> >>
> >> In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who
> >> choose to participate.
> >>
> >> The fact that operator participation in the process is limited 
> >> (voluntarily by
> >> the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This
> >> not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other 
> >> multi-stakeholder
> >> fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development.
> >>
> >> If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in 
> >> these
> >> processes, I’m all ears.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs
> >>> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment
> >>> between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented
> >>> issue that affects several other policies within various RIR
> >>> communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix
> >>> length and what operators filter against as an example.
> >>>
> >>> Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations
> >>> and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking
> >>> place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision
> >>> for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from
> >> somewhere.
> >>>
> >>> Mark.
> >>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >> *
> >>> ___
> >>> sig-policy mailing list
> >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >>
> >> *  

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[David Farmer]

On 2/27/15 16:05 , Dean Pemberton wrote:

So a "maybe someday" ASN?

So anyone who has PI space and doesn't already have an ASN gets
allocated one regardless of need.
Any new member who gets PI space gets an ASN allocated as a matter of
course.


Don't allocated one if they don't want one.  But if they want one, and 
they already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no?  And its not 
regardless of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need.


If someone gets an ASN, and uses it, when they get PI, they will have a 
much easier time porting to a new provider, or better yet, becoming 
multi-homed and/or participating in an IX in the future.


So, don't force them to get an ASN, just don't force then wait until 
they multi-home their PI either.



Any additional ASN requested by a member must conform to existing policy.


The exact wording of the current policy may or may not be right for the 
situation, but that is the basic idea.  Also, you should still be able 
to get an ASN to do PA multi-homing, if you are multi-homing with a 
cut-out from an upstream provider.



Is this where we're at?  Change the proposal and see where we get to.


Yes, please.


Why not make it your APNIC membership number and be done with it :).
That lowers the barrier even further and means that people wouldn't need
assistance applying for them.


That's silly, your APNIC Member number should just be your credit card 
number. :)



--

David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Jessica Shen]

In addition, to clariry, I didn't mean making APRICOT and Policy SIG sessions 
parallel, but sequential on the same day(s). For example, when operators finish 
a APOPS session, they can join the Policy session in the next time spot; and 
when finish the Policy session, they can join another APOPS session.

Jessica Shen


> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "Owen DeLong" 
> 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
> 收件人: "Shen Zhi" 
> 抄送: "Mark Tinka" , sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in  the ASN 
> eligibility criteria
> 
> 
> > On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi  wrote:
> > 
> > Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes 
> > is
> > important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good 
> > ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the 
> > Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background 
> > instroductions
> > by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with 
> > the 
> > policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a 
> > very good 
> > way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion.
> > 
> > I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days 
> > when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, 
> > will 
> > it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?
> 
> That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider 
> more interesting,
> then probably not.
> 
> If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into 
> shopping time, etc.
> 
> As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest.
> 
> Owen
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Jessica Shen
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> -邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong
> >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42
> >> 收件人: Mark Tinka
> >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the
> >> ASN eligibility criteria
> >> 
> >> In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who
> >> choose to participate.
> >> 
> >> The fact that operator participation in the process is limited 
> >> (voluntarily by
> >> the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This
> >> not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other 
> >> multi-stakeholder
> >> fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development.
> >> 
> >> If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in 
> >> these
> >> processes, I’m all ears.
> >> 
> >> Owen
> >> 
> >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka 
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs
> >>> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment
> >>> between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented
> >>> issue that affects several other policies within various RIR
> >>> communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix
> >>> length and what operators filter against as an example.
> >>> 
> >>> Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations
> >>> and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking
> >>> place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision
> >>> for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up.
> >>> 
> >>> I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from
> >> somewhere.
> >>> 
> >>> Mark.
> >>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >> *
> >>> ___
> >>> sig-policy mailing list
> >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >> 
> >> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >> *
> >> ___
> >> sig-policy mailing list
> >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> > 
> 
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning
talks on Thursday.
It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators.

On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen  wrote:

> Owen,
>
> What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'?
>
> Jessica Shen
>
>
> > -原始邮件-
> > 发件人: "Owen DeLong" >
> > 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
> > 收件人: "Shen Zhi" >
> > 抄送: "Mark Tinka" >,
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> > 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in
> the ASN eligibility criteria
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi >
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy
> processes is
> > > important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good
> > > ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on
> the
> > > Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background
> instroductions
> > > by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar
> with the
> > > policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's
> a very good
> > > way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same
> days
> > > when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or
> Wednesday, will
> > > it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?
> >
> > That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would
> consider more interesting,
> > then probably not.
> >
> > If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn
> into shopping time, etc.
> >
> > As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than
> interest.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jessica Shen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -邮件原件-
> > >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
> > >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net ] 代表 Owen
> DeLong
> > >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42
> > >> 收件人: Mark Tinka
> > >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> > >> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in
> the
> > >> ASN eligibility criteria
> > >>
> > >> In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to
> any who
> > >> choose to participate.
> > >>
> > >> The fact that operator participation in the process is limited
> (voluntarily by
> > >> the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators.
> This
> > >> not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other
> multi-stakeholder
> > >> fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development.
> > >>
> > >> If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation
> in these
> > >> processes, I’m all ears.
> > >>
> > >> Owen
> > >>
> > >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs
> > >>> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment
> > >>> between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented
> > >>> issue that affects several other policies within various RIR
> > >>> communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix
> > >>> length and what operators filter against as an example.
> > >>>
> > >>> Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations
> > >>> and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking
> > >>> place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a
> provision
> > >>> for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from
> > >> somewhere.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mark.
> > >>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> > >> *
> > >>> ___
> > >>> sig-policy mailing list
> > >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> > >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> > >>
> > >> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> > >> *
> > >> ___
> > >> sig-policy mailing list
> > >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> > >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> > >
> >
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>


-- 
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Jessica Shen]

Owen, 

What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'?

Jessica Shen


> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "Owen DeLong" 
> 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
> 收件人: "Shen Zhi" 
> 抄送: "Mark Tinka" , sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in  the ASN 
> eligibility criteria
> 
> 
> > On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi  wrote:
> > 
> > Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes 
> > is
> > important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good 
> > ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the 
> > Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background 
> > instroductions
> > by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with 
> > the 
> > policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a 
> > very good 
> > way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion.
> > 
> > I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days 
> > when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, 
> > will 
> > it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?
> 
> That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider 
> more interesting,
> then probably not.
> 
> If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into 
> shopping time, etc.
> 
> As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest.
> 
> Owen
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Jessica Shen
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> -邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong
> >> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42
> >> 收件人: Mark Tinka
> >> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the
> >> ASN eligibility criteria
> >> 
> >> In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who
> >> choose to participate.
> >> 
> >> The fact that operator participation in the process is limited 
> >> (voluntarily by
> >> the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This
> >> not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other 
> >> multi-stakeholder
> >> fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development.
> >> 
> >> If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in 
> >> these
> >> processes, I’m all ears.
> >> 
> >> Owen
> >> 
> >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka 
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs
> >>> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment
> >>> between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented
> >>> issue that affects several other policies within various RIR
> >>> communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix
> >>> length and what operators filter against as an example.
> >>> 
> >>> Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations
> >>> and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking
> >>> place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision
> >>> for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up.
> >>> 
> >>> I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from
> >> somewhere.
> >>> 
> >>> Mark.
> >>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >> *
> >>> ___
> >>> sig-policy mailing list
> >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >> 
> >> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >> *
> >> ___
> >> sig-policy mailing list
> >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> > 
> 
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

So a "maybe someday" ASN?

So anyone who has PI space and doesn't already have an ASN gets allocated
one regardless of need.
Any new member who gets PI space gets an ASN allocated as a matter of
course.

Any additional ASN requested by a member must conform to existing policy.

Is this where we're at?  Change the proposal and see where we get to.

Why not make it your APNIC membership number and be done with it :). That
lowers the barrier even further and means that people wouldn't need
assistance applying for them.



On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani  > wrote:
> >
> > On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote:
> >> I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from
> RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want
> to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
> >>
> >
> > OK, that's an interesting approach.
> >
> > What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other
> > operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed
> > portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.
>
> I can see a few reasons.
>
> 1.  The difficulty of renumbering from a private ASN is proportional
> to the number of links,
> not the number of ASNs. Ergo, someone who is single homed, but
> plans to become
> multihomed at some unspecified date in the future may, indeed,
> have good reason for
> wanting to do so with a public ASN.
>
> 2.  I see very little harm in adopting such a policy, so long as it is
> limited to one ASN per
> organization.
>
> 3.  If you have multiple links to a provider with diverse topology, it
> is desirable to be able
> to use a routing protocol in order to prevent black-holing traffic
> across down links, etc.
> The only routing protocol any sane ISP would run with an unrelated
> third party is
> BGP. BGP requires an ASN. See above for why a public ASN may be
> more desirable
> under this circumstance than a private one.
>
> As to the references to RFC-1930, I think they are anachronistic at this
> point.
>
> RFC-1930 was written before 32-bit ASNs were available and with a strong
> eye to the
> coming shortage of 16-bit ASNs. While I agree that even the 32-bit pool of
> ASNs is finite,
> I don’t think we’re going to cause a shortage of them by allowing
> single-homed organizations
> with PI space who plan to multihome at an unspecified future time to
> receive one.
>
> As such, I believe such a policy would do no harm and provide benefit to
> some members
> of the community. If it were proposed, I would support it.
>
> Owen
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>


-- 
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani  wrote:
> 
> On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote:
>> I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs 
>> should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) 
>> regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
>> 
> 
> OK, that's an interesting approach.
> 
> What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other
> operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed
> portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.

I can see a few reasons.

1.  The difficulty of renumbering from a private ASN is proportional to the 
number of links,
not the number of ASNs. Ergo, someone who is single homed, but plans to 
become
multihomed at some unspecified date in the future may, indeed, have 
good reason for
wanting to do so with a public ASN.

2.  I see very little harm in adopting such a policy, so long as it is 
limited to one ASN per 
organization.

3.  If you have multiple links to a provider with diverse topology, it is 
desirable to be able
to use a routing protocol in order to prevent black-holing traffic 
across down links, etc.
The only routing protocol any sane ISP would run with an unrelated 
third party is
BGP. BGP requires an ASN. See above for why a public ASN may be more 
desirable
under this circumstance than a private one.

As to the references to RFC-1930, I think they are anachronistic at this point.

RFC-1930 was written before 32-bit ASNs were available and with a strong eye to 
the
coming shortage of 16-bit ASNs. While I agree that even the 32-bit pool of ASNs 
is finite,
I don’t think we’re going to cause a shortage of them by allowing single-homed 
organizations
with PI space who plan to multihome at an unspecified future time to receive 
one.

As such, I believe such a policy would do no harm and provide benefit to some 
members
of the community. If it were proposed, I would support it.

Owen

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi  wrote:
> 
> Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes is
> important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good 
> ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the 
> Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background 
> instroductions
> by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the 
> policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a very 
> good 
> way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion.
> 
> I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days 
> when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will 
> it help that more operators attend the policy discussions?

That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider 
more interesting,
then probably not.

If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into 
shopping time, etc.

As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest.

Owen

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jessica Shen
> 
> 
> 
>> -邮件原件-
>> 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong
>> 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42
>> 收件人: Mark Tinka
>> 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the
>> ASN eligibility criteria
>> 
>> In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who
>> choose to participate.
>> 
>> The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily 
>> by
>> the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This
>> not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder
>> fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development.
>> 
>> If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these
>> processes, I’m all ears.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs
>>> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment
>>> between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented
>>> issue that affects several other policies within various RIR
>>> communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix
>>> length and what operators filter against as an example.
>>> 
>>> Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations
>>> and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking
>>> place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision
>>> for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up.
>>> 
>>> I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from
>> somewhere.
>>> 
>>> Mark.
>>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> *
>>> ___
>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> 
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[David Farmer]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 00:22, Dean Pemberton  wrote:
> 
> I'm sure Skeeve also thinks that organisations should be able to get all the 
> IP addresses they might ever need all on day one.
> I'm sure he even knows a company who could arrange that for them.

Well our IPv4 policies are explicitly designed to not provide all the IPv4 
addresses an organization needs.  Where as with IPv6 that is at least possible, 
maybe not forever, but there is a goal of 5 to 10 years or more for an initial 
allocation.

> Lets see where the community thinks this should go.  
> It still sounds like unlimited ASNs for anyone who thinks they might like to 
> have them.
> Great business for anyone clipping the ticket on the transaction.

Now that we that have 4 billion ASNs, maybe we should reexamine our policy 
goals for ASNs, at least compared to when we only had 65 thousand ASNs.  

If we are willing to give an organization a routing slot with IPv4 or IPv6 PA 
or PI address block, why wouldn't we be willing to give them a ASN too?  I 
would want them to provide additional justification why they need a second ASN, 
but the mere fact we gave then a PA or PI address block is probably sufficient 
justification for their first ASN.  

The reverse is also probably also true, if we are NOT willing to give them a 
routing slot, we probably should NOT be willing to give them an ASN either, at 
least without additional justification like multi-homing.

> --
> Dean Pemberton
> 
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> 
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

-- 
===
David Farmer  Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: +1-612-812-9952
===

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 11:43, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> OK, that's an interesting approach.
>
> What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other
> operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed
> portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.

My experience with downstreams who have needed address space without the
need for an ASN is so they can have independence from their provider's
address space, but do not necessarily have the skill-set or budget to
run an autonomous system.

So I do not think that it is necessarily wise to tie IP address
resources to ASN resources in this way, by default. It is a valid
operational approach for networks that require the address space - but
not the autonomous system routing - to have their upstreams run their
address space behind the upstreams ASN. As an operator running network
across Africa, Europe and south Asia, we see and handle these use-cases
all the time. In my experience, most customers in this scenario are more
concerned with address space than routing.

Mark.

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote:
> I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs 
> should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) 
> regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
> 

OK, that's an interesting approach.

What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other
operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed
portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.


Izumi

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

On 2015/02/27 18:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 27/Feb/15 10:58, Usman Latif wrote:
>> I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from
>> RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they
>> want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
>>
>> Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link
>> (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are
>> "not multihomed" as they use the same provider.
> 
> BGP does not concern itself with how many links it is running over.
> 
> Networks on the Internet have no idea how many links exist between you
> and your service provider(s). All they see is the NLRI your network
> purports to originate.
> 
> So really, being multi-homed has little bearing on how many links you
> have to one or more providers, but rather with how many different
> providers you share your routing policy with.
> 
> In BGP's mind (and in the classic definition of multi-homing as our
> community understands it today), you could have 100x links to the same
> ISP, but to the world, you still appear to be behind a single ISP, not
> behind 100x links.
> 

Indeed.

If we look at the definition of multihoming on APNIC Guangliang have
shared on this mailing list, it doesn't specify how many links and it
defines criteria based on ASNs.



http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4

3.4 Multihomed

A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
Exchange Point.

In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It
is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.


Izumi


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 10:58, Usman Latif wrote:
> I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from
> RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they
> want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
>
> Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link
> (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are
> "not multihomed" as they use the same provider.

BGP does not concern itself with how many links it is running over.

Networks on the Internet have no idea how many links exist between you
and your service provider(s). All they see is the NLRI your network
purports to originate.

So really, being multi-homed has little bearing on how many links you
have to one or more providers, but rather with how many different
providers you share your routing policy with.

In BGP's mind (and in the classic definition of multi-homing as our
community understands it today), you could have 100x links to the same
ISP, but to the world, you still appear to be behind a single ISP, not
behind 100x links.

Mark.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

How so?


If not, then this should be brought into scope because controlling traffic
> and AS-loops using private ASNs becomes challenging for organisations that
> have single-homed-but-multiple-links-to-same-provider-scenarios
>




>
>
> Regards,
> Usman
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:10 pm, Skeeve Stevens  > wrote:
>
> This is where the big different in philosophy is.
>
> I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be
> multi-homed - 'at some point'
>
> Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when
> you are ready.
>
> Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my
> networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com  ;
> www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton  > wrote:
>
>> It did say "immediate future".
>> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
>> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
>> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>>
>> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
>> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
>> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
>> closer to peering.
>>
>> Dean
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>> 
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>> > > wrote:
>> > Hi Guangliang,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>> >>  at the time of submitting a request
>> >
>> >
>> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with
>> whom
>> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> >
>> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> > *
>> > ___
>> > sig-policy mailing list
>> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> 
>> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> >
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>  *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> 
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>   *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> 
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>

-- 
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Usman Latif]

I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs 
should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) 
regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.

Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for 
redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are "not 
multihomed" as they use the same provider.
I am not sure if the current proposal allows for assignment of a public ASN for 
the above situation?
If not, then this should be brought into scope because controlling traffic and 
AS-loops using private ASNs becomes challenging for organisations that have 
single-homed-but-multiple-links-to-same-provider-scenarios


Regards,
Usman


> On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:10 pm, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> This is where the big different in philosophy is.
> 
> I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be 
> multi-homed - 'at some point'
> 
> Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you 
> are ready.
> 
> Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my 
> networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton  
>> wrote:
>> It did say "immediate future".
>> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
>> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
>> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>> 
>> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
>> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
>> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
>> closer to peering.
>> 
>> Dean
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>> 
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>> 
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi Guangliang,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>> >>  at the time of submitting a request
>> >
>> >
>> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
>> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> >
>> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> > *
>> > ___
>> > sig-policy mailing list
>> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> >
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy  
>>  *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Sanjeev Gupta]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

> Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my
> networks - and telling me when I should do the work.


Skeeve, I think you are stressing this point too far.

Dean has absolutely no right to tell you how you build your network.  I
wouldn't dream of having an opinon, either.  And I strongly oppose APNIC
getting involved in your network design at all.

But an ASN is not used for "your" network.  It is used to connect to
others.  If it was only your network you were concerned about, you can use
the ASN number I was allocated.  Or make up your own ASN.

If you do decide to connect to "the Internet", you have to listen to what
other players say.  I do not have a policy on how my customers at my DC
build their networks, but if they want to transit me, they MUST apply
BCP38, or else.  Some lie, forget to maintain it, turn it off later, etc.



-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Sanjeev Gupta]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Izumi Okutani  wrote:

> May I clarify with APNIC hosmaster whether :
>
>  a. It is a must for an applicant to be multihomed at the time of
> submitting the request
>
>  b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
> immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
> at the time of submitting a request
>

When I became an APNIC member in 2005, and applied for an ASN, I clearly
stated that I was _planning_ to multihome.  At that time, I did not even
have PI address space.

I had discussed with two service providers, and provided the network
diagram in my application.


-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Yes we did... Like when Cisco started rolling out 1.1.1.1 to Wireless
Controllers and other things.

...Skeeve

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Dean Pemberton  wrote:

> Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time.
>
>  - Large organizations like banks and retail chains are
>switching to TCP/IP for their internal communication. Large
>numbers of local workstations like cash registers, money
>machines, and equipment at clerical positions rarely need
>to have such connectivity.
>
> Thing is though that we haven't tossed out the rest of RFC1918 just
> because some of it didn't age well.
>
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz 
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
> > wrote:
> > On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times
> here
> > as the Best Current Practice even valid today..
> >
> > an excerpt
> >
> > "BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS
> > routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol,
> > which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see
> > [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the
> RDI, or
> > Routing Domain Identifier."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton  >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It did say "immediate future".
> >> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
> >> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
> >> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
> >>
> >> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
> >> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
> >> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
> >> closer to peering.
> >>
> >> Dean
> >> --
> >> Dean Pemberton
> >>
> >> Technical Policy Advisor
> >> InternetNZ
> >> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> >> d...@internetnz.net.nz 
> >>
> >> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
> >> > wrote:
> >> > Hi Guangliang,
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
> >> >>
> >> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
> >> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically
> multihomed
> >> >>  at the time of submitting a request
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with
> >> > whom
> >> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> >> >
> >> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >> > *
> >> > ___
> >> > sig-policy mailing list
> >> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> >> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >> >
> >
> >
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>


-- 
...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus)
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time.

 - Large organizations like banks and retail chains are
   switching to TCP/IP for their internal communication. Large
   numbers of local workstations like cash registers, money
   machines, and equipment at clerical positions rarely need
   to have such connectivity.

Thing is though that we haven't tossed out the rest of RFC1918 just
because some of it didn't age well.



--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
 wrote:
> On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times here
> as the Best Current Practice even valid today..
>
> an excerpt
>
> "BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS
> routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol,
> which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see
> [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or
> Routing Domain Identifier."
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton 
> wrote:
>>
>> It did say "immediate future".
>> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
>> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
>> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>>
>> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
>> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
>> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
>> closer to peering.
>>
>> Dean
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi Guangliang,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>> >>  at the time of submitting a request
>> >
>> >
>> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with
>> > whom
>> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> >
>> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> > *
>> > ___
>> > sig-policy mailing list
>> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> >
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

I'm sure Skeeve also thinks that organisations should be able to get all
the IP addresses they might ever need all on day one.
I'm sure he even knows a company who could arrange that for them.

Lets see where the community thinks this should go.
It still sounds like unlimited ASNs for anyone who thinks they might like
to have them.
Great business for anyone clipping the ticket on the transaction.



--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

> This is where the big different in philosophy is.
>
> I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be
> multi-homed - 'at some point'
>
> Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when
> you are ready.
>
> Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my
> networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton 
> wrote:
>
>> It did say "immediate future".
>> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
>> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
>> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>>
>> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
>> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
>> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
>> closer to peering.
>>
>> Dean
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi Guangliang,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>> >>  at the time of submitting a request
>> >
>> >
>> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with
>> whom
>> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> >
>> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> > *
>> > ___
>> > sig-policy mailing list
>> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> >
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>  *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Aftab Siddiqui]

On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times here
as the Best Current Practice even valid today..

an excerpt

"BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS
routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol,
which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see
[IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI,
or Routing Domain Identifier."




Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> It did say "immediate future".
> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>
> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
> closer to peering.
>
> Dean
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>  wrote:
> > Hi Guangliang,
> >
> >>
> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
> >>
> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
> >>  at the time of submitting a request
> >
> >
> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> >
> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> > *
> > ___
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Jahangir Hossain]

Personally, I also faced the same complexity about the "mandatory
multi-homing requirement" when i tried to apply for ASN of new ISP.

I support this by considering "organizations are not tempted to provide
wrong information " . Make simple and authenticate information .



On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> It did say "immediate future".
> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>
> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
> closer to peering.
>
> Dean
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>  wrote:
> > Hi Guangliang,
> >
> >>
> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
> >>
> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
> >>  at the time of submitting a request
> >
> >
> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> >
> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> > *
> > ___
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>



-- 
Regards  - Jahangir
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

This is where the big different in philosophy is.

I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be
multi-homed - 'at some point'

Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you
are ready.

Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my
networks - and telling me when I should do the work.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> It did say "immediate future".
> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>
> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
> then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
> closer to peering.
>
> Dean
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>  wrote:
> > Hi Guangliang,
> >
> >>
> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
> >>
> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
> >>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
> >>  at the time of submitting a request
> >
> >
> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> >
> > *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> > *
> > ___
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

Just to mention that Izumi mentioned what is also largely requested and
done at the AfriNIC region as well. I don't think there is any policy
implication for member that peers with a different ASN other than the ones
provided during application.

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Feb 2015 06:14, "Izumi Okutani"  wrote:

> On 2015/02/27 14:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> > Hi Guangliang,
> >
> >
> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
> >>
> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
> >>   immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
> >>   at the time of submitting a request
> >>
> >
> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
> >
>
> I don't know whether it's adequate to do the same case in the APNIC
> region but sharing our case as a reference -
>
> JPNIC requests for contact information for those ASNs they plan to be
> connected.
>
> We sometimes we contact the upstreams and confirm the plan and this
> seems to be working OK.
>
>
> Regards,
> Izumi
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

It did say "immediate future".
I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.

If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
then you might not know the ASN.  But in those situations RFC1930 says
that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
closer to peering.

Dean
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
 wrote:
> Hi Guangliang,
>
>>
>> The option "b" is acceptable.
>>
>> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>>  at the time of submitting a request
>
>
> But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
> they may or may not multhome in future. right?
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 07:34, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> We would know which organization the ASNs are assigned to, as those
> upstream ASNs are already used.
>
> We don't have a formal mechanism to check the authenticity of the POCs
> but usually check the e-mails provided are reachable. We would find it
> suspicious if the domain name of the e-mail provided is different from
> the domain used for the organization or free e-mail accounts.
>
> It's not formal in the sense that we request upstream ASNs to register a
> POC. I suppose therefore you can still forge domain name, etc, but it is
> sufficient in our case to give credibility above a certain level.

In the AFRINIC region, the membership have been mostly frustrated by
this added step by the AFRINIC hostmasters. But personally, I support if
they can always enforce it, as it adds some kind of "proof" that the
application information is reasonably genuine and the chances of faking
needs are somewhat reduced (which is better than not being reduced).

Of course, an applicant could collude with the ISP to let them claim the
applicant is, in fact, going to buy services that warrant the allocation
of resources. However, this comes back to the integrity of the ISP. Not
100% foolproof, but a step in some direction.

Mark.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Aftab,


On 2015/02/27 14:19, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
> 
> 
>> Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handle ASN
>> requests in JPNIC.
>>
> 
> w.r.t JPNIC, do they ask for the details of those ASN (along with contact
> details) with whom applicant is planning to multi-home in future? Do they
> have any mechanism to check the authenticity of those ASN and contact
> details provided?
> 

We would know which organization the ASNs are assigned to, as those
upstream ASNs are already used.

We don't have a formal mechanism to check the authenticity of the POCs
but usually check the e-mails provided are reachable. We would find it
suspicious if the domain name of the e-mail provided is different from
the domain used for the organization or free e-mail accounts.

It's not formal in the sense that we request upstream ASNs to register a
POC. I suppose therefore you can still forge domain name, etc, but it is
sufficient in our case to give credibility above a certain level.



Regards,
Izumi


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Hi Izumi,


> Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handle ASN
> requests in JPNIC.
>

w.r.t JPNIC, do they ask for the details of those ASN (along with contact
details) with whom applicant is planning to multi-home in future? Do they
have any mechanism to check the authenticity of those ASN and contact
details provided?

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 07:14, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> I don't know whether it's adequate to do the same case in the APNIC
> region but sharing our case as a reference -
>
> JPNIC requests for contact information for those ASNs they plan to be
> connected.
>
> We sometimes we contact the upstreams and confirm the plan and this
> seems to be working OK.

AFRINIC do the same thing.

They reach out to the ISP that the applicant has listed in their
application form to confirm whether, indeed, there are real plans for
the applicant to connect to to said ISP.

I'm not sure if they do the same for exchange points, as I'm not in that
space.

Mark.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

On 2015/02/27 14:00, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi Guangliang,
> 
> 
>> The option "b" is acceptable.
>>
>> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>>   immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>>   at the time of submitting a request
>>
> 
> But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
> they may or may not multhome in future. right?
> 

I don't know whether it's adequate to do the same case in the APNIC
region but sharing our case as a reference -

JPNIC requests for contact information for those ASNs they plan to be
connected.

We sometimes we contact the upstreams and confirm the plan and this
seems to be working OK.


Regards,
Izumi

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Guangliang Pan]

Hi Aftab,

The option "b" is acceptable.

b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
 immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
 at the time of submitting a request

But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they 
may or may not multhome in future. right?

Yes, they need to provide two ASNs which they planned to peer at the time of 
the application. They might peer to different ASNs after they received their 
own AS number.

Thanks,
Guangliang
=



*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Guangliang,


> The option "b" is acceptable.
>
> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>   immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>   at the time of submitting a request


Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handle ASN 
requests in JPNIC.


If the issue is, some applicants misunderstand they must be multihomed 
at the time of submitting the ASN request (and plan to be multihomed is 
not acceptable), as described in an earlier post -


Perhaps it is a matter of stating this more clearly in the policy document?


Thanks,
Izumi


On 2015/02/27 13:54, Guangliang Pan wrote:

Hi Izumi,

The option "b" is acceptable.

b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
  at the time of submitting a request

Thanks,
Guangliang
=

-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
Sent: Friday, 27 February 2015 2:48 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the 
ASN eligibility criteria

Hi all,


I agree with the suggested approach from the chair.

Raphael's earlier post was really helpful in understanding the situation. Thank 
you Raphael.


I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not
meet the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible
since they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the
future (which I do agree)


I sympathize with this too.

I can see cases where an applicant plans to be multihomed but not multi-homed 
at the time of the application.


May I clarify with APNIC hosmaster whether :

   a. It is a must for an applicant to be multihomed at the time of
  submitting the request

   b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
  at the time of submitting a request

In case of JPNIC, it is b.

   - We approve the ASN assignments if an applicant can demonstrate the
 *plan* to be multihomed within three months.


I wonder taking approach b (accept a plan to be multihomed) addresses
the problem described by Raphael (and Aftab) ?




Regards,
Izumi


On 2015/02/27 7:03, Masato Yamanishi wrote:

Skeeve,

As acting chair, I'm neutral for each proposal, but even for me, proposed text sounds 
everybody can get AS by just saying "I need it within 6 months" without any 
explanation howto use it.
If your intension is covering more usecases, but not allowing for everyone, can 
you tweak proposed text?


4. Proposed policy solution
---

  An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
   - Is planning to use it within next 6 months


Masato Yamanishi


Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens  のメッセージ:


Dean,

What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.

"You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes".  I 
am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this - WITHOUT the 
requirement for being multi-homed.

The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either 
lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using HE 
or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network.

You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away 
because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in 
that way.




...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com

IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton  wrote:

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:


I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they 
manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.


I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.

It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to 
getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy.  This fact has been 
supported by the current hostmasters.  Operators currently have the freedom to 
choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an ASN anytime they 
need one for operational purposes.

There is no change in policy required.

I strongly oppose this policy as written.


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Hi Guangliang,


> The option "b" is acceptable.
>
> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>  immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>  at the time of submitting a request
>

But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
they may or may not multhome in future. right?

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Guangliang Pan]

Hi Izumi,

The option "b" is acceptable.

b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
 immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
 at the time of submitting a request

Thanks,
Guangliang
=

-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
Sent: Friday, 27 February 2015 2:48 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the 
ASN eligibility criteria

Hi all,


I agree with the suggested approach from the chair.

Raphael's earlier post was really helpful in understanding the situation. Thank 
you Raphael.

> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s 
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not 
> meet the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible 
> since they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the 
> future (which I do agree)

I sympathize with this too.

I can see cases where an applicant plans to be multihomed but not multi-homed 
at the time of the application.


May I clarify with APNIC hosmaster whether :

  a. It is a must for an applicant to be multihomed at the time of
 submitting the request

  b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
 immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
 at the time of submitting a request

In case of JPNIC, it is b.

  - We approve the ASN assignments if an applicant can demonstrate the
*plan* to be multihomed within three months.


I wonder taking approach b (accept a plan to be multihomed) addresses 
the problem described by Raphael (and Aftab) ?




Regards,
Izumi


On 2015/02/27 7:03, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> Skeeve,
>
> As acting chair, I'm neutral for each proposal, but even for me, proposed 
> text sounds everybody can get AS by just saying "I need it within 6 months" 
> without any explanation howto use it.
> If your intension is covering more usecases, but not allowing for everyone, 
> can you tweak proposed text?
>
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ---
>>
>>  An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
>>   - Is planning to use it within next 6 months
>
> Masato Yamanishi
>
>
> Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens  のメッセージ:
>
>> Dean,
>>
>> What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.
>>
>> "You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes".  
>> I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this - 
>> WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed.
>>
>> The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either 
>> lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using 
>> HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network.
>>
>> You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away 
>> because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in 
>> that way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>>
>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton  
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they 
>>>> manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
>>>
>>> I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.
>>>
>>> It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to 
>>> getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy.  This fact has 
>>> been supported by the current hostmasters.  Operators currently have the 
>>> freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an 
>>> ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes.
>>>
>>> There is no change in policy required.
>>>
>>> I strongly oppose this policy as written.
>>
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy  
>>  *
>> ___
>

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi all,


I agree with the suggested approach from the chair.

Raphael's earlier post was really helpful in understanding the 
situation. Thank you Raphael.



I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
(which I do agree)


I sympathize with this too.

I can see cases where an applicant plans to be multihomed but not 
multi-homed at the time of the application.



May I clarify with APNIC hosmaster whether :

 a. It is a must for an applicant to be multihomed at the time of
submitting the request

 b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
at the time of submitting a request

In case of JPNIC, it is b.

 - We approve the ASN assignments if an applicant can demonstrate the
   *plan* to be multihomed within three months.


I wonder taking approach b (accept a plan to be multihomed) addresses 
the problem described by Raphael (and Aftab) ?





Regards,
Izumi


On 2015/02/27 7:03, Masato Yamanishi wrote:

Skeeve,

As acting chair, I'm neutral for each proposal, but even for me, proposed text sounds 
everybody can get AS by just saying "I need it within 6 months" without any 
explanation howto use it.
If your intension is covering more usecases, but not allowing for everyone, can 
you tweak proposed text?


4. Proposed policy solution
---

 An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
  - Is planning to use it within next 6 months


Masato Yamanishi


Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens  のメッセージ:


Dean,

What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.

"You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes".  I 
am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this - WITHOUT the 
requirement for being multi-homed.

The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either 
lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using HE 
or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network.

You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away 
because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in 
that way.




...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com

IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton  wrote:

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:


I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they 
manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.


I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.

It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to 
getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy.  This fact has been 
supported by the current hostmasters.  Operators currently have the freedom to 
choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an ASN anytime they 
need one for operational purposes.

There is no change in policy required.

I strongly oppose this policy as written.


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy




*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy



*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

We will have new wording soon.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Masato Yamanishi 
wrote:

> Skeeve,
>
> As acting chair, I'm neutral for each proposal, but even for me, proposed
> text sounds everybody can get AS by just saying "I need it within 6 months"
> without any explanation howto use it.
> If your intension is covering more usecases, but not allowing for
> everyone, can you tweak proposed text?
>
> > 4. Proposed policy solution
> > ---
> >
> > An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
> >  - Is planning to use it within next 6 months
>
> Masato Yamanishi
>
>
> Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens  のメッセージ:
>
> Dean,
>
> What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.
>
> "You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation
> purposes".  I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do
> this - WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed.
>
> The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to
> either lie to provide false information or find a way around the
> restriction (using HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage
> their network.
>
> You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away
> because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in
> that way.
>
>
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how
>>> they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.
>>
>> It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier
>> to getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy.  This fact
>> has been supported by the current hostmasters.  Operators currently have
>> the freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get
>> an ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes.
>>
>> There is no change in policy required.
>>
>> I strongly oppose this policy as written.
>>
>>
>>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>   *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Masato Yamanishi]

Skeeve,

As acting chair, I'm neutral for each proposal, but even for me, proposed text 
sounds everybody can get AS by just saying "I need it within 6 months" without 
any explanation howto use it.
If your intension is covering more usecases, but not allowing for everyone, can 
you tweak proposed text?

> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
> 
> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
>  - Is planning to use it within next 6 months

Masato Yamanishi


Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens  のメッセージ:

> Dean,
> 
> What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.
> 
> "You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes".  
> I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this - 
> WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed.
> 
> The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either 
> lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using 
> HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network.
> 
> You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away 
> because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in 
> that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton  
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they 
>>> manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
>> 
>> I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.
>> 
>> It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to 
>> getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy.  This fact has 
>> been supported by the current hostmasters.  Operators currently have the 
>> freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an 
>> ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes.
>> 
>> There is no change in policy required.
>> 
>> I strongly oppose this policy as written.
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who 
choose to participate.

The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by 
the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not 
only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora 
covering various aspects of internet governance and development.

If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these 
processes, I’m all ears.

Owen

> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs
> more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between
> the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that
> affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not
> just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators
> filter against as an example.
> 
> Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations
> and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place
> within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for
> them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up.
> 
> I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere.
> 
> Mark.
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Job Snijders]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:08:42PM +, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
> On 2/25/15 11:10 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> 
> > A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless
> > it is multi-homed or connected to an IX.  A network of 100 routers
> > probably justifies an ASN regardless.  Then the question becomes,
> > where to draw the line.
> 
> even more slippery slope. eg. AS 29216 has a single upstream, with
> just 2 prefixes (one v4, one v6).  and they have a legitimate need, so
> size is irrelevant.

I agree with Gaurab, attempting to pinpoint where to draw the line in
this context is not worth the effort. Talking about 'size', assumes
networks can be classified by quantitative metrics.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2/25/15 11:10 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless
> it is multi-homed or connected to an IX.  A network of 100 routers
> probably justifies an ASN regardless.  Then the question becomes,
> where to draw the line.

even more slippery slope. eg. AS 29216 has a single upstream, with
just 2 prefixes (one v4, one v6).  and they have a legitimate need, so
size is irrelevant.

- -gaurab

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAlTvNvoACgkQSo7fU26F3X10YACgtvvwLsn/IBjwM0hzZyw5gry9
tV0AoMjytMyN2Mgwm6Qr0m1DUE1GS5zo
=uwQr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Mark Tinka]

While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs
more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between
the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that
affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not
just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators
filter against as an example.

Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations
and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place
within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for
them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up.

I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere.

Mark.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:50 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> Dean,
> 
> You are quoting an RFC from 1996 (19 years ago)?  What next, the Old 
> Testament? Thou shalt be multi-homed?
> 
> I don't think this RFC ever envisioned the IP runout and that networks hosted 
> by businesses themselves (of any size) would need multi-homing and in the 
> reading of this, you could make an argument that no-one needs an ASN and that 
> all their upstreams could host their portable space for them.

IP runout was well and truly known to be coming more than 20 years ago. That’s 
one of the reasons IPv6 was developed so long ago.

> 
> Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has 
> no intention of ever multi-homing.

Yes you are. You may not intend to suggest that, but your policy proposal 
wording certainly provides for it.

> 
> I am wanting to policy to reflect that if a network operator wants to design 
> their network for multi-homing, that they should be able to, with no 
> requirement to immediately multi-home.  At no point did I say 'never' 
> multi-home, or no intention of multi-homing the intention should be there.

Then propose a policy that does that. The current draft doesn’t. If it has 
sufficient safeguards against turning the ASN registry into a Pez dispenser, 
then I will support it.

> 
> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they 
> manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.

Nobody is objecting to that. However, that’s not a letter of the law 
interpretation of what you have proposed.

Owen

> 
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com  ; www.v4now.com 
> 
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve <>
> facebook.com/v4now  ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve 
> 
> twitter.com/theispguy  ; blog: 
> www.theispguy.com 
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dean Pemberton  > wrote:
> Actually the RFC makes this clear.
> 
> There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as "BEST 
> CURRENT PRACTICE".  Please someone let me know if I've missed an obsolescence 
> here.
> 
> All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and should 
> almost never happen".  If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no longer 
> constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try and fix 
> this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a departure from 
> documented current best practice.  
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1 Sample Cases
> 
>*Single-homed site, single prefix
> 
> A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an
> AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-
> ing policy as the other customers of the site's service
> provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-
> ing information.
> 
> This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-
> lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a
> representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of
> administrative use.
> 
> In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find
> it necessary to have a policy different from that of its
> provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-
> rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-
> tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites
> require different routing policies than their parents. Because
> the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.
> 
>*Single-homed site, multiple prefixes
> 
> Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be
> placed in an AS of the site's provider.
> 
>*Multi-homed site
> 
> Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes
> which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than
> one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network
> multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.
> 
> An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a
> single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.
> This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-
> sentation of policy and preference among the different service
> providers.
> 
> This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should
> create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure
> that it has the necessary facilities to run appropr

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Dean,

What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.

"You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation
purposes".  I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do
this - WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed.

The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to
either lie to provide false information or find a way around the
restriction (using HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage
their network.

You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away
because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in
that way.




...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they
>> manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
>>
>>
>>
> I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.
>
> It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier
> to getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy.  This fact
> has been supported by the current hostmasters.  Operators currently have
> the freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get
> an ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes.
>
> There is no change in policy required.
>
> I strongly oppose this policy as written.
>
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:36 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
> Can't you see the fault in your argument?  You are suggesting that a member 
> needlessly creates a tunnel to HE just to satisfy the needs of the current 
> policy... that seems wasteful and a stupid hoop which just gets around the 
> policy.

Who said anything about needlessly… They probably need IPv6 and this gets them 
decent IPv6 connectivity.

> I might as well just offer free peering with a couple of routes to my ASN for 
> anyone who wants to satisfy the policy.

You’re certainly welcome to do that. After all, I’m not trying to tell you how 
to run your network.

> The point here is fixing a requirement that is so easily avoided, it needed 
> be there in the first place.

But you go so far beyond fixing the requirement that you break so much more. Go 
back and look at what I said about a policy I  would not object to.

> All you are doing is causing people to create route-object garbage so that 
> they are able to run their networks the way they want to.

I didn’t say anything about creating a single route object. There’s no 
requirement to create a route object or even use an IRR in anything I said, so 
you’re just wrong here.

Owen

> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com  ; www.v4now.com 
> 
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve <>
> facebook.com/v4now  ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve 
> 
> twitter.com/theispguy  ; blog: 
> www.theispguy.com 
> 
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
> > ...
> >> There is essentially no barrier to entry here.  If a site needs an ASN
> >> they are able to receive one.  If they want one 'just in case', then
> >> that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.
> >>
> >> Dean
> >
> > From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.
> >
> > However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; 
> > having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a 
> > new unique registry assigned ASN.  Which you are saying I can't have until 
> > I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX.  If 
> > I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship.  But if you connect to 
> > a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive 
> > network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a 
> > second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the 
> > new ASN could be rather complicated.
> 
> That’s actually not the case.
> 
> The case is until you choose to multihome or connect to an IX. You can choose 
> to do that with a pretty small network. My home is multihomed, for example.
> 
> Any network with an IPv4 upstream can get an IPv6 tunnel from HE, turn on 
> BGP, and poof, they are sufficiently multihomed for the APNIC definition. HE 
> has several tunnel servers in the APNIC region to support this.
> 
> Changing ASNs on peering sessions actually isn’t very hard. There’s a brief 
> period where you have inconsistent origin, but otherwise, it’s mostly one 
> line of config change on each of your border routers. Even if you’ve got a 
> hundred peering sessions, it’s something that can be done in a day or two 
> with a cooperative provider. It might take a few weeks with some of the less 
> responsive providers.
> 
> However, while I’m not trying to tell anyone how to run their network, I 
> think we can agree that it is pretty foolhearty to get much beyond 2 or 3 
> peering sessions without mixing in some provider diversity. Further, if you 
> want to plan ahead and deploy an ASN early, turning up an HE tunnel to do 
> that is pretty easy. Unless HE is your only upstream for IPv4, you’re all set 
> at that point.
> 
> > I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is 
> > at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations.  I think maybe 
> > a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN 
> > regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or 
> > connected to an IX.
> 
> I don’t think size is relevant. As I said, I wouldn’t oppose a policy 
> modification that in addition to the current mechanisms, allowed for anyone 
> with a PI allocation or assignment to obtain a single ASN without question.
> 
> > A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is 
> > multi-homed or connected to an IX.  A network of 100 routers probably 
> > justifies an ASN reg

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

>
>
> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they
> manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
>
>
>
I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.

It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to
getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy.  This fact has
been supported by the current hostmasters.  Operators currently have the
freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an
ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes.

There is no change in policy required.

I strongly oppose this policy as written.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Dean,

You are quoting an RFC from 1996 (19 years ago)?  What next, the Old
Testament? Thou shalt be multi-homed?

I don't think this RFC ever envisioned the IP runout and that networks
hosted by businesses themselves (of any size) would need multi-homing and
in the reading of this, you could make an argument that no-one needs an ASN
and that all their upstreams could host their portable space for them.

Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has
no intention of ever multi-homing.

I am wanting to policy to reflect that if a network operator wants to
design their network for multi-homing, that they should be able to, with no
requirement to immediately multi-home.  At no point did I say 'never'
multi-home, or no intention of multi-homing the intention should be
there.

I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they
manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.



...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> Actually the RFC makes this clear.
>
> There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as "BEST
> CURRENT PRACTICE".  Please someone let me know if I've missed an
> obsolescence here.
>
> All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and
> should almost never happen".  If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no
> longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try
> and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a
> departure from documented current best practice.
>
>
>
> 5.1 Sample Cases
>
>*Single-homed site, single prefix
>
> A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an
> AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-
> ing policy as the other customers of the site's service
> provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-
> ing information.
>
> This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-
> lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a
> representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of
> administrative use.
>
> In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find
> it necessary to have a policy different from that of its
> provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-
> rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-
> tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites
> require different routing policies than their parents. Because
> the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.
>
>*Single-homed site, multiple prefixes
>
> Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be
> placed in an AS of the site's provider.
>
>*Multi-homed site
>
> Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes
> which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than
> one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network
> multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.
>
> An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a
> single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.
> This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-
> sentation of policy and preference among the different service
> providers.
>
> This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should
> create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure
> that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing
> protocols, such as BGP4.
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>
>> Owen,
>>
>> But who determines 'if they need one' ?  Them, or you (plural)?
>>
>> I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able
>> to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their
>> upstream connectivity at any particular time.
>>
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>
>> facebook.com/v4now ;  
>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>
>> twitter.com/theispgu

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Actually the RFC makes this clear.

There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as "BEST
CURRENT PRACTICE".  Please someone let me know if I've missed an
obsolescence here.

All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and
should almost never happen".  If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no
longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try
and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a
departure from documented current best practice.



5.1 Sample Cases

   *Single-homed site, single prefix

A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an
AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-
ing policy as the other customers of the site's service
provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-
ing information.

This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-
lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a
representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of
administrative use.

In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find
it necessary to have a policy different from that of its
provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-
rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-
tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites
require different routing policies than their parents. Because
the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.

   *Single-homed site, multiple prefixes

Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be
placed in an AS of the site's provider.

   *Multi-homed site

Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes
which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than
one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network
multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.

An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a
single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.
This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-
sentation of policy and preference among the different service
providers.

This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should
create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure
that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing
protocols, such as BGP4.

--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

> Owen,
>
> But who determines 'if they need one' ?  Them, or you (plural)?
>
> I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able
> to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their
> upstream connectivity at any particular time.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
>> > trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not
>> meet
>> > the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
>> > they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
>> > (which I do agree)
>>
>> What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they
>> actually need it?
>>
>> > Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
>> > guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
>>
>> They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN
>> before they need one.
>>
>> > Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
>> > something on the lines of
>> >
>> > ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
>> > for as ASN²?
>>
>> I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand
>> why they need one
>> ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>  *
>> ___
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Owen,

Can't you see the fault in your argument?  You are suggesting that a member
needlessly creates a tunnel to HE just to satisfy the needs of the current
policy... that seems wasteful and a stupid hoop which just gets around the
policy.

I might as well just offer free peering with a couple of routes to my ASN
for anyone who wants to satisfy the policy.

The point here is fixing a requirement that is so easily avoided, it needed
be there in the first place.

All you are doing is causing people to create route-object garbage so that
they are able to run their networks the way they want to.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer  wrote:
> >
> > On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
> > ...
> >> There is essentially no barrier to entry here.  If a site needs an ASN
> >> they are able to receive one.  If they want one 'just in case', then
> >> that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.
> >>
> >> Dean
> >
> > From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.
> >
> > However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently;
> having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a
> new unique registry assigned ASN.  Which you are saying I can't have until
> I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX.  If
> I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship.  But if you connect to
> a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive
> network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a
> second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the
> new ASN could be rather complicated.
>
> That’s actually not the case.
>
> The case is until you choose to multihome or connect to an IX. You can
> choose to do that with a pretty small network. My home is multihomed, for
> example.
>
> Any network with an IPv4 upstream can get an IPv6 tunnel from HE, turn on
> BGP, and poof, they are sufficiently multihomed for the APNIC definition.
> HE has several tunnel servers in the APNIC region to support this.
>
> Changing ASNs on peering sessions actually isn’t very hard. There’s a
> brief period where you have inconsistent origin, but otherwise, it’s mostly
> one line of config change on each of your border routers. Even if you’ve
> got a hundred peering sessions, it’s something that can be done in a day or
> two with a cooperative provider. It might take a few weeks with some of the
> less responsive providers.
>
> However, while I’m not trying to tell anyone how to run their network, I
> think we can agree that it is pretty foolhearty to get much beyond 2 or 3
> peering sessions without mixing in some provider diversity. Further, if you
> want to plan ahead and deploy an ASN early, turning up an HE tunnel to do
> that is pretty easy. Unless HE is your only upstream for IPv4, you’re all
> set at that point.
>
> > I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there
> is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations.  I think
> maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain
> an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or
> connected to an IX.
>
> I don’t think size is relevant. As I said, I wouldn’t oppose a policy
> modification that in addition to the current mechanisms, allowed for anyone
> with a PI allocation or assignment to obtain a single ASN without question.
>
> > A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is
> multi-homed or connected to an IX.  A network of 100 routers probably
> justifies an ASN regardless.  Then the question becomes, where to draw the
> line.
>
> I’m having trouble envisioning who would build a network with 100 border
> routers (only the border routers really count in this case) without
> connecting to more than one upstream. This smells like looking for a corner
> case to justify a solution looking for a problem statement.
>
>
> Owen
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer  wrote:
> 
> On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>> There is essentially no barrier to entry here.  If a site needs an ASN
>> they are able to receive one.  If they want one 'just in case', then
>> that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.
>> 
>> Dean
> 
> From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.
> 
> However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; 
> having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a 
> new unique registry assigned ASN.  Which you are saying I can't have until 
> I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX.  If 
> I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship.  But if you connect to a 
> single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive network 
> that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a second 
> provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the new ASN 
> could be rather complicated.

That’s actually not the case.

The case is until you choose to multihome or connect to an IX. You can choose 
to do that with a pretty small network. My home is multihomed, for example.

Any network with an IPv4 upstream can get an IPv6 tunnel from HE, turn on BGP, 
and poof, they are sufficiently multihomed for the APNIC definition. HE has 
several tunnel servers in the APNIC region to support this.

Changing ASNs on peering sessions actually isn’t very hard. There’s a brief 
period where you have inconsistent origin, but otherwise, it’s mostly one line 
of config change on each of your border routers. Even if you’ve got a hundred 
peering sessions, it’s something that can be done in a day or two with a 
cooperative provider. It might take a few weeks with some of the less 
responsive providers.

However, while I’m not trying to tell anyone how to run their network, I think 
we can agree that it is pretty foolhearty to get much beyond 2 or 3 peering 
sessions without mixing in some provider diversity. Further, if you want to 
plan ahead and deploy an ASN early, turning up an HE tunnel to do that is 
pretty easy. Unless HE is your only upstream for IPv4, you’re all set at that 
point.

> I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is at 
> least an operational barrier to entry in some situations.  I think maybe a 
> compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN 
> regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or connected 
> to an IX.

I don’t think size is relevant. As I said, I wouldn’t oppose a policy 
modification that in addition to the current mechanisms, allowed for anyone 
with a PI allocation or assignment to obtain a single ASN without question.

> A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is 
> multi-homed or connected to an IX.  A network of 100 routers probably 
> justifies an ASN regardless.  Then the question becomes, where to draw the 
> line.

I’m having trouble envisioning who would build a network with 100 border 
routers (only the border routers really count in this case) without connecting 
to more than one upstream. This smells like looking for a corner case to 
justify a solution looking for a problem statement.


Owen


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Owen,

The intent is not to give people as many AS's as they want, and indeed few
businesses would ever need more than 1 AS.

What about if businesses did not have the multi-homing requirement for the
first ASN they were issued?


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you.
> >
> > You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that
> they aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for
> changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change
> in network configuration.
> >
> > That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how
> things should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do
> it the way they want to.
> >
> > If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no
> restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to.
>
> Even if I agreed with what you have said above, and I do not, this last
> statement bears no resemblence to the policy you have proposed.
>
> If you want to propose a policy that matches your last sentence, I would
> not oppose that, so long as any additional ASNs had to be issued under the
> current multihome requirement.
>
> However, your proposal doesn’t say someone who has PI space is entitled to
> 1 ASN. It says anyone who wants one is entitled to as many ASNs as they
> want.
>
> That’s simply a bad idea.
>
> Owen
>
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Guangliang Pan]

Hi Aftab,
If a network is single homed, according to the current policy, it does not 
qualify for a public ASN assignment. We would recommend requestors to use a 
private ASN instead. – I believe this is the main debate point of this policy 
discussion.

APNIC Members are bound by the membership agreement to not provide false or 
misleading information in their resource application. We work on the basis of 
trust when we do our evaluations. However, Hostmasters do contact other ASN 
peers if necessary to verify information provided in the request.
The ASN policy doesn’t request APNIC to monitor the ASN peering. APNIC Members 
are allowed to change their network peers at any time. The aut-num object in 
the whois database is maintained by the Member’s maintainer, and it is their 
responsibility to update their peer information in a timely manner.
Best regards,
Guangliang
=


From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 4:25 PM
To: Guangliang Pan
Cc: Dean Pemberton; Owen DeLong; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the 
ASN eligibility criteria

Thanks Guangliang for the update,


According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of 
multihomed is as below.

http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4

3.4 Multihomed

A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS 
also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange 
Point.

In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN 
implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also 
acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.

So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in 
place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS numbers 
and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3 months that 
the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with the ones they 
mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification to those contacts 
provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS to be peer with in 
future?

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you.
> 
> You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they 
> aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for 
> changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change in 
> network configuration.
> 
> That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how things 
> should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do it the 
> way they want to.
> 
> If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no 
> restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to.

Even if I agreed with what you have said above, and I do not, this last 
statement bears no resemblence to the policy you have proposed.

If you want to propose a policy that matches your last sentence, I would not 
oppose that, so long as any additional ASNs had to be issued under the current 
multihome requirement.

However, your proposal doesn’t say someone who has PI space is entitled to 1 
ASN. It says anyone who wants one is entitled to as many ASNs as they want.

That’s simply a bad idea.

Owen

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

David,

I agree very much with the operational perspective (obviously), but since
when in this day and age of infrastructure that size still matters?

Having to change your infrastructure (of any size), potentially with
outages and so on, is not acceptable if you are able to design around it
from day one.

I see it enough that a member should be able to proactively design their
connectivity (should they want to - no one is being forced here) to have
the potential for multi-homing.

The silly thing with the multi-homing barrier as Guangliang confirmed, you
could multi-home for 1 day and meet the criteria and then disconnect and
then you are still allowed to continue using it.  So why have the
restriction there in the first place?

Surely if someone thinks having an ASN is important in their design, they
should be allowed to have one.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:10 AM, David Farmer  wrote:

> On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>
>> There is essentially no barrier to entry here.  If a site needs an ASN
>> they are able to receive one.  If they want one 'just in case', then
>> that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.
>>
>> Dean
>>
>
> From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.
>
> However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently;
> having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a
> new unique registry assigned ASN.  Which you are saying I can't have until
> I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX.  If
> I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship.  But if you connect to
> a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive
> network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a
> second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the
> new ASN could be rather complicated.
>
> I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is
> at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations.  I think maybe
> a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN
> regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or
> connected to an IX.
>
> A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is
> multi-homed or connected to an IX.  A network of 100 routers probably
> justifies an ASN regardless.  Then the question becomes, where to draw the
> line.
>
> --
> 
> David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:46 , Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
> 
> To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it is 
> to do with flexibility.
> 
> I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without 
> being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenience of being able to add 
> these things easily.
> 
> Lets say I was a company with a /23 and upstream into Telstra Only.  If I had 
> my own ASN and was announcing to Telstra, then at any time I could add 
> another ISP, IXP, direct peering without having to go apply for an ASN, 
> reconfigure my network to bring the announcement in-house, etc. 

No you can’t… You just have already done it instead of doing it when you get 
ready to actually multihome.

It’s all the same effort, just a difference in when you have to apply said 
effort.

> I also might want to maintain a single provider, but be able to migrate 
> easily to another provider without having to rely on the providers to do the 
> "right thing" while changing announcements between them.

This has some validity, but if you have an overlap period, you’re multihomed 
during the overlap and eligible for an ASN as a result.

> I think this policy has VERY valid applications for many smaller entities to 
> be able to have an ASN without having to be multi-homed either initially, or 
> maintain that multi-homing.

I don’t believe you lose your ASN if you stop multihoming.

> As Randy used to say - Why do you have the right to tell me how to manage my 
> network?  If I want to be multi-homed, or change my mind and not be, it is 
> none of your damn business.

That’s true. But nobody is trying to tell you that. I don’t believe the APNIC 
policy calls for reclaiming ASNs from entities that are no longer multihomed. 
It merely prevents issuing ASNs to entities that are not multihomed.

The only possible case I can see where this might be useful would be the case 
of two uplinks to the same ASN that are sufficiently topologically diverse as 
to make it desirable to do route injection for better failover capabilities.

> I think this policy change reflects the changing way for businesses to get 
> online since APNIC has run out of IP's, and are often charging significant 
> amounts of money - so people are going to APNIC directly - which they are 
> entitled to do.  And being flexible and being able to change their 
> circumstances is a more common thing nowadays.

No, this policy change turns APNIC into an ASN pez dispenser which is an 
undesirable state.

You don’t need an ASN to use provider independent addresses, so the rest of the 
paragraph is a red herring.

The flexibility exists. It’s just a question of when one does the work to turn 
on BGP and get an ASN. I see no reason the community should hand out ASNs to 
anyone who thinks they might want one for some possible use at some possible 
time in some possible future.

> If you want, suggest charging for ASN's... but don't tell networks how they 
> should be connected at any time.

Nobody is telling anyone how they should be connected. This is about resource 
management of a community resource pool, not about dictating operational 
practice. You can do everything you have said you want to do with your network 
under the existing policy.  You just can’t get an ASN until you actually need 
one. Imagine where we’d be if we had handed out all the IPv4 space to anyone 
who thought they might need some someday?

> Btw... I am happy for this to apply ONLY to ASN4 and not ASN2.

There are no more ASN4s than there are IPv4 addresses.

Owen


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Owen,

But who determines 'if they need one' ?  Them, or you (plural)?

I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able
to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their
upstream connectivity at any particular time.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho 
> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> > trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> > the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> > they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> > (which I do agree)
>
> What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually
> need it?
>
> > Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> > guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
>
> They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before
> they need one.
>
> > Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> > something on the lines of
> >
> > ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> > for as ASN²?
>
> I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand
> why they need one
> ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
>
> Owen
>
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[David Farmer]

On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
...

There is essentially no barrier to entry here.  If a site needs an ASN
they are able to receive one.  If they want one 'just in case', then
that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.

Dean


From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.

However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; 
having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate 
to a new unique registry assigned ASN.  Which you are saying I can't 
have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect 
to an IX.  If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship.  But 
if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a 
fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned 
ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which 
point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated.


I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there 
is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations.  I think 
maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to 
obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being 
multi-homed, or connected to an IX.


A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is 
multi-homed or connected to an IX.  A network of 100 routers probably 
justifies an ASN regardless.  Then the question becomes, where to draw 
the line.


--

David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho  wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)

What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need 
it?

> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.

They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they 
need one.

> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
> 
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?

I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why 
they need one
ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?

Owen


*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:06 , Dean Pemberton  wrote:
> 
> Great - Thanks for that.
> 
> As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
> I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
> 

Agreed… However, it does allow one to basically get ASNs no matter what, since 
all one needs to do is cobble up 3 distinct sites and ask for an ASN for each 
site and then peer the sites with each other.

Owen

> I do not support the proposal
> 
> 
> --
> Dean Pemberton
> 
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> 
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>> 
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of 
>> multihomed is as below.
>> 
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>> 
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>> 
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS 
>> also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet 
>> Exchange Point.
>> 
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN 
>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is 
>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Guangliang
>> =
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in 
>> the ASN eligibility criteria
>> 
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the 
>> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>> 
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>> 
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then your 
>>>>>> routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may 
>>>>>> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering 
>>>>> relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not 
>>>>> down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to 
>>>>> convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a 
>>>>> multihomed situation.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year  =) ).
>>>> 
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute 
>>>> multihoming.
>>> 
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner 
>>> that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>> 
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could 
>>> render this moot.
>>> 
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with 
>>> related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting 
>>> valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>> 
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also 
>>> encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be 
>>> a “unique routing policy”.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what
>>>> the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
>>>> point us to it then it might hel

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Thanks Guangliang,

That's what I hoped the answer would be and it's great to see that the
hostmasters are able to turn these around so quickly.

My summary here after all we have discussed is that under the current
policy, if there is an operational need (connecting to more than one
ASN or to an IXP) for a member to have an ASN, they can apply a short
time in advance and generally receive an ASN the next working day.

There is essentially no barrier to entry here.  If a site needs an ASN
they are able to receive one.  If they want one 'just in case', then
that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.

Dean
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
> Hi Dean,
>
> If they meet the policy requirement and no payment requested, they normally 
> will receive an ASN in the next working day.
>
> Thanks,
> Guangliang
>
>> On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:36 pm, "Dean Pemberton"  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for that Guangliang.  Thats really helped to clarify the position 
>> here.
>>
>> Another question.
>> Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN
>> (assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it
>> being allocated?
>>
>> 1 day?
>> 1 week?
>> 1 month?
>>
>> I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than
>> it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Dean
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>>> Hi Dean and All,
>>>
>>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of 
>>> multihomed is as below.
>>>
>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>>
>>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>>
>>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS 
>>> also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet 
>>> Exchange Point.
>>>
>>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN 
>>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is 
>>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Guangliang
>>> =
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
>>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>>> To: Owen DeLong
>>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in 
>>> the ASN eligibility criteria
>>>
>>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the 
>>> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dean Pemberton
>>>
>>> Technical Policy Advisor
>>> InternetNZ
>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>>
>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then your 
>>>>>>> routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may 
>>>>>>> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering 
>>>>>> relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not 
>>>>>> down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to 
>>>>>> convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a 
>>>>>> multihomed situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Guangliang Pan]

Hi Skeeve,

I don't think we have a policy to reclaim those AS Numbers.

Regards,
Guangliang

On 25 Feb 2015, at 7:57 pm, "Skeeve Stevens" 
mailto:ske...@v4now.com>> wrote:

Guangliang,

What are the rules about someone with a ASN, later de-multi-homing?


...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com<mailto:ske...@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com<http://www.v4now.com/>

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now<http://facebook.com/v4now> ; 
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau> 
linkedin.com/in/skeeve<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>

twitter.com/theispguy<http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: 
www.theispguy.com<http://www.theispguy.com/>

[http://eintellegonetworks.com/logos/v4now-web05.png]

IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Guangliang Pan 
mailto:g...@apnic.net>> wrote:
Hi Gaurab,

If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy they 
can receive an ASN assignment.

Regards,
Guangliang

> On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya" 
> mailto:gau...@lahai.com>> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Guangliang,
>
> can you clarify these questions for me.
>
> If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
> circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
> would that be considered multihoming ?
>
>
> - -gaurab
>
>
>
>> On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
>> of multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
>> AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
>> public Internet Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
>> ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
>> details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
>> IXP.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Guangliang =
>>
>> -Original Message- From: 
>> sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>
>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>]
>>  On Behalf Of Dean
>> Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
>> DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> 
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
>> [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
>> criteria
>>
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
>> the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>
>>
>> -- Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz>
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
>> potential.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong 
>> mailto:o...@delong.com>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
>>>> mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong 
>>>> mailto:o...@delong.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed
>>>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
>>>>>> single upstream.  You may wish it was, but you have no way
>>>>>> to enforce this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
>>>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
>>>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
>>>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
>>>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
>>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
>>>> =) ).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
>>>> constitute multihoming.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “mul

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Guangliang,

What are the rules about someone with a ASN, later de-multi-homing?


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:

> Hi Gaurab,
>
> If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy
> they can receive an ASN assignment.
>
> Regards,
> Guangliang
>
> > On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya" 
> wrote:
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Guangliang,
> >
> > can you clarify these questions for me.
> >
> > If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
> > circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
> > would that be considered multihoming ?
> >
> >
> > - -gaurab
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
> >> Hi Dean and All,
> >>
> >> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
> >> of multihomed is as below.
> >>
> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
> >>
> >> 3.4 Multihomed
> >>
> >> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
> >> AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
> >> public Internet Exchange Point.
> >>
> >> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
> >> ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
> >> details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
> >> IXP.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Guangliang =====
> >>
> >> -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> >> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean
> >> Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
> >> DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
> >> [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
> >> criteria
> >>
> >> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
> >> the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Dean Pemberton
> >>
> >> Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> >> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> >>
> >> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
> >> potential.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
> >>>>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed
> >>>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
> >>>>>> single upstream.  You may wish it was, but you have no way
> >>>>>> to enforce this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is not true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
> >>>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
> >>>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
> >>>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
> >>>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
> >>>>> situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
> >>>> =) ).
> >>>>
> >>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
> >>>> constitute multihoming.
> >>>
> >>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
> >>> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
> >>>
> >>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC
> >>> could render this moot.
> >>>
> >>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings
> >>> with related 

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Guangliang Pan]

Hi Gaurab,

If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy they 
can receive an ASN assignment. 

Regards,
Guangliang 

> On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya"  wrote:
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Guangliang,
> 
> can you clarify these questions for me.
> 
> If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
> circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
> would that be considered multihoming ?
> 
> 
> - -gaurab
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>> 
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
>> of multihomed is as below.
>> 
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>> 
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>> 
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
>> AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
>> public Internet Exchange Point.
>> 
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
>> ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
>> details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
>> IXP.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Guangliang =
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean
>> Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
>> DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
>> [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
>> criteria
>> 
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
>> the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>> 
>> 
>> -- Dean Pemberton
>> 
>> Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) 
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>> 
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
>> potential.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed
>>>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
>>>>>> single upstream.  You may wish it was, but you have no way
>>>>>> to enforce this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
>>>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
>>>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
>>>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
>>>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
>>>>> situation.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
>>>> =) ).
>>>> 
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
>>>> constitute multihoming.
>>> 
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
>>> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>> 
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC
>>> could render this moot.
>>> 
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings
>>> with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not
>>> constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a
>>> unique routing policy”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed
>>>> and covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>> 
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection?
>>> I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not
>>> multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to
>>>> what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one
>>>> of them can point us to it then it might help.
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Guangliang Pan]

Hi Dean,

If they meet the policy requirement and no payment requested, they normally 
will receive an ASN in the next working day. 

Thanks,
Guangliang 

> On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:36 pm, "Dean Pemberton"  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for that Guangliang.  Thats really helped to clarify the position here.
> 
> Another question.
> Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN
> (assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it
> being allocated?
> 
> 1 day?
> 1 week?
> 1 month?
> 
> I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than
> it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session.
> 
> Thanks
> Dean
> --
> Dean Pemberton
> 
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> 
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>> 
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of 
>> multihomed is as below.
>> 
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>> 
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>> 
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS 
>> also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet 
>> Exchange Point.
>> 
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN 
>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is 
>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Guangliang
>> =
>> 
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in 
>> the ASN eligibility criteria
>> 
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the 
>> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>> 
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>> 
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then your 
>>>>>> routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may 
>>>>>> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering 
>>>>> relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not 
>>>>> down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to 
>>>>> convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a 
>>>>> multihomed situation.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year  =) ).
>>>> 
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute 
>>>> multihoming.
>>> 
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner 
>>> that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>> 
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could 
>>> render this moot.
>>> 
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with 
>>> related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting 
>>> valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>> 
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also 
>>> encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be 
>>> a “unique routing policy”.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>&

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Dean,

I'm not debating the time it takes to get an ASN allocated... I'm talking
about everything else around it... and changing your setup when you
shouldn't even have to... again, you're telling people how to run their
networks.

I'm simply saying that leave the running of the networks to them... let
them decide when, if they multi-home, if they choose to de-multi-home, etc.

We all know we can lie our way around this... but people shouldn't have
to... and if that is the only reason, then it is still a valid one.

A rule that isn't enforced, or has any repercussions for going around,
shouldn't even be there in the first place.  If the only reason it remains
is to annoy some small number of ethical people, it should be remediated.



...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> Thanks for that Guangliang.  Thats really helped to clarify the position
> here.
>
> Another question.
> Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN
> (assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it
> being allocated?
>
> 1 day?
> 1 week?
> 1 month?
>
> I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than
> it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session.
>
> Thanks
> Dean
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
> > Hi Dean and All,
> >
> > According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
> multihomed is as below.
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
> >
> > 3.4 Multihomed
> >
> > A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
> Exchange Point.
> >
> > In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is
> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Guangliang
> > =
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:
> sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
> > To: Owen DeLong
> > Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification
> in the ASN eligibility criteria
> >
> > Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the
> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dean Pemberton
> >
> > Technical Policy Advisor
> > InternetNZ
> > +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> > d...@internetnz.net.nz
> >
> > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> >>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then
> your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may
> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not true.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering
> relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream.
> These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that
> one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year  =) ).
> >>>
> >>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute
> multihoming.
> >>
> >> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
> >>
> >> Clarification from APNIC staff on 

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Thanks for that Guangliang.  Thats really helped to clarify the position here.

Another question.
Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN
(assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it
being allocated?

1 day?
1 week?
1 month?

I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than
it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session.

Thanks
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
> Hi Dean and All,
>
> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of 
> multihomed is as below.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>
> 3.4 Multihomed
>
> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS 
> also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange 
> Point.
>
> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN 
> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is 
> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guangliang
> =
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the 
> ASN eligibility criteria
>
> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the 
> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then your 
>>>>> routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may 
>>>>> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>
>>>> This is not true.
>>>>
>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering 
>>>> relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. 
>>>> These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that 
>>>> one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year  =) ).
>>>
>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute 
>>> multihoming.
>>
>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner 
>> that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>
>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render 
>> this moot.
>>
>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with 
>> related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting 
>> valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>
>>
>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>
>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also 
>> encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a 
>> “unique routing policy”.
>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what
>>> the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
>>> point us to it then it might help.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as 
>>>> stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance 
>>>> in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing 
>>>> requirement from an APNIC perspective.
>>>
>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are.
>>> I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or more 

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you.

You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they
aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for
changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change
in network configuration.

That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how things
should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do it the
way they want to.

If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no
restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to.




...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> Nope - Your other email didn't provide any reasons which weren't covered
> by Philips answer.
>
> If you have a peering session to two or more ASNs you are multihomed and
> you qualify.
> If you only peer with one ASN then you can do this with a private ASN.
> If you want to make a change and move from a single peer to more than one
> then you get quickly get an ASN.
> You can even get them in advance of a planned network change as seen in
> the current policy snippet below
>
> "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)."
>
> No need to change policy.
>
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:
>
>> Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this
>> policy change.
>>
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
>> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>>
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>
>> facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
>> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>
>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>>
>>
>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith  wrote:
>>
>>> Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
>>> > Great - Thanks for that.
>>> >
>>> > As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
>>> > I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
>>>
>>> Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.
>>>
>>> If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is
>>> no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private
>>> matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1
>>> billion of those.
>>>
>>> If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then
>>> they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared.
>>>
>>> philip
>>> --
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I do not support the proposal
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Dean Pemberton
>>> >
>>> > Technical Policy Advisor
>>> > InternetNZ
>>> > +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>>> > d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>> >
>>> > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Dean and All,
>>> >>
>>> >> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
>>> multihomed is as below.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>> >>
>>> >> 3.4 Multihomed
>>> >>
>>> >> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS.
>>> An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
>>> Exchange Point.
>>> >>
>>> >> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
>>> ASN impleme

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Nope - Your other email didn't provide any reasons which weren't covered by
Philips answer.

If you have a peering session to two or more ASNs you are multihomed and
you qualify.
If you only peer with one ASN then you can do this with a private ASN.
If you want to make a change and move from a single peer to more than one
then you get quickly get an ASN.
You can even get them in advance of a planned network change as seen in the
current policy snippet below

"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)."

No need to change policy.



--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Skeeve Stevens  wrote:

> Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this
> policy change.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith  wrote:
>
>> Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
>> > Great - Thanks for that.
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
>> > I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
>>
>> Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.
>>
>> If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is
>> no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private
>> matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1
>> billion of those.
>>
>> If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then
>> they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared.
>>
>> philip
>> --
>>
>> >
>> > I do not support the proposal
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dean Pemberton
>> >
>> > Technical Policy Advisor
>> > InternetNZ
>> > +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> > d...@internetnz.net.nz
>> >
>> > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>> >> Hi Dean and All,
>> >>
>> >> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
>> multihomed is as below.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>> >>
>> >> 3.4 Multihomed
>> >>
>> >> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS.
>> An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
>> Exchange Point.
>> >>
>> >> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is
>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Guangliang
>> >> =
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:
>> sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>> >> To: Owen DeLong
>> >> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> >> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification
>> in the ASN eligibility criteria
>> >>
>> >> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the
>> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dean Pemberton
>> >>
>> >> Technical Policy Advisor
>> >> InternetNZ
>> >> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> >> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>> >>
>> >> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton 
>> wrot

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

I would think it would... why does it matter how you get to another peer?


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya 
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Guangliang,
>
> can you clarify these questions for me.
>
> If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
> circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
> would that be considered multihoming ?
>
>
> - -gaurab
>
>
>
> On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
> > Hi Dean and All,
> >
> > According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
> > of multihomed is as below.
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
> >
> > 3.4 Multihomed
> >
> > A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
> > AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
> > public Internet Exchange Point.
> >
> > In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
> > ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
> > details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
> > IXP.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Guangliang =
> >
> > -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> > [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean
> > Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
> > DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
> > [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
> > criteria
> >
> > Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
> > the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
> >
> >
> > -- Dean Pemberton
> >
> > Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> > d...@internetnz.net.nz
> >
> > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
> > potential.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed
> >>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
> >>>>> single upstream.  You may wish it was, but you have no way
> >>>>> to enforce this.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not true.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
> >>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
> >>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
> >>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
> >>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
> >>>> situation.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
> >>> =) ).
> >>>
> >>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
> >>> constitute multihoming.
> >>
> >> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
> >> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
> >>
> >> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC
> >> could render this moot.
> >>
> >> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings
> >> with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not
> >> constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a
> >> unique routing policy”.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
> >>>  participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed
> >>> and covered under existing APNIC policy.
> >>
> >> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection?
> >> I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not
> >> multihomed” and to be

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Guangliang,

can you clarify these questions for me.

If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
would that be considered multihoming ?


- -gaurab



On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
> Hi Dean and All,
> 
> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
> of multihomed is as below.
> 
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
> 
> 3.4 Multihomed
> 
> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
> AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
> public Internet Exchange Point.
> 
> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
> ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
> details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
> IXP.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Guangliang =
> 
> -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean
> Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
> DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
> [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
> criteria
> 
> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
> the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
> 
> 
> -- Dean Pemberton
> 
> Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) 
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> 
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
> potential.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong 
> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong 
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed
>>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
>>>>> single upstream.  You may wish it was, but you have no way
>>>>> to enforce this.
>>>> 
>>>> This is not true.
>>>> 
>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
>>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
>>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
>>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
>>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
>>>> situation.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
>>> =) ).
>>> 
>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
>>> constitute multihoming.
>> 
>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
>> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>> 
>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC
>> could render this moot.
>> 
>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings
>> with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not
>> constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a
>> unique routing policy”.
>> 
>> 
>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>  participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed
>>> and covered under existing APNIC policy.
>> 
>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection?
>> I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not
>> multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to
>>> what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one
>>> of them can point us to it then it might help.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other
>>>> proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate
>>>> reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations
>>>> that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC
>>>> perspective.
>>> 
>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements
>>> are. I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or
>>> more other ASNs" In which case I think we can go back to
>>> agreeing.
>> 
>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or
>> more public

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this
policy change.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith  wrote:

> Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
> > Great - Thanks for that.
> >
> > As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
> > I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
>
> Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.
>
> If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is
> no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private
> matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1
> billion of those.
>
> If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then
> they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared.
>
> philip
> --
>
> >
> > I do not support the proposal
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dean Pemberton
> >
> > Technical Policy Advisor
> > InternetNZ
> > +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> > d...@internetnz.net.nz
> >
> > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
> >> Hi Dean and All,
> >>
> >> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
> multihomed is as below.
> >>
> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
> >>
> >> 3.4 Multihomed
> >>
> >> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS.
> An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
> Exchange Point.
> >>
> >> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is
> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Guangliang
> >> =========
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:
> sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
> >> To: Owen DeLong
> >> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification
> in the ASN eligibility criteria
> >>
> >> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the
> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dean Pemberton
> >>
> >> Technical Policy Advisor
> >> InternetNZ
> >> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> >> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> >>
> >> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton 
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> >>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then
> your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may
> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is not true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not
> down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to
> convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a
> multihomed situation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year  =) ).
> >>>>
> >>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute
> multihoming.
> >>>
> >>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
> >>>
> >>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could
> render this moot.
> >>&

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

A slight side tracking here - looking for some opinions.

how much of the cruft on IRR system is there because organizations
with allocated prefixes have to depend on their upstreams for the
creation of their route objects, which then doesn't get removed when
the relationship ends.

- -gaurab


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAlTtgaUACgkQSo7fU26F3X1qPgCgp64/H56nfdbrXfyc6Q42yOqV
SE4AoMyXqwqjFYrfjLo7CTNywkTlAEGE
=d+RP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Philip Smith]

Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
> Great - Thanks for that.
> 
> As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
> I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.

Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.

If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is
no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private
matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1
billion of those.

If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then
they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared.

philip
--

> 
> I do not support the proposal
> 
> 
> --
> Dean Pemberton
> 
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
> 
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of 
>> multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS 
>> also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet 
>> Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN 
>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is 
>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>> =
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in 
>> the ASN eligibility criteria
>>
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the 
>> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then your 
>>>>>> routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may 
>>>>>> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering 
>>>>> relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not 
>>>>> down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to 
>>>>> convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a 
>>>>> multihomed situation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year  =) ).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute 
>>>> multihoming.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner 
>>> that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>>
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could 
>>> render this moot.
>>>
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with 
>>> related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting 
>>> valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>>
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also 
>>> encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be 
>>> a “unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

Agreed... Aftabs use case is one of many... the others I just posted about.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Raphael Ho 
wrote:

> All,
>
> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)
>
> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
>
> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
>
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?
>
> This would cover the use case without opening the floodgates.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Raf
>
>
> On 25/2/15 2:33 pm, "Dean Pemberton"  wrote:
>
> >Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
> >sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
> >If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
> >conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
> >to just give up issuing visas.
> >
> >It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
> >job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
> >resources.  Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
> >them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
> >the existing policies.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Dean
> >--
> >Dean Pemberton
> >
> >Technical Policy Advisor
> >InternetNZ
> >+64 21 920 363 (mob)
> >d...@internetnz.net.nz
> >
> >To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
> > wrote:
> >> Thanks Guangliang for the update,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
> >>> multihomed is as below.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
> >>>
> >>> 3.4 Multihomed
> >>>
> >>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS.
> >>>An
> >>> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
> >>> Exchange Point.
> >>>
> >>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
> >>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It
> >>>is
> >>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
> >>
> >>
> >> So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public
> >>IX in
> >> place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
> >> numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after
> >>3
> >> months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering
> >>with
> >> the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email
> >>notification
> >> to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned
> >>your AS
> >> to be peer with in future?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Aftab A. Siddiqui.
> >*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >*
> >___
> >sig-policy mailing list
> >sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Raphael Ho]

All,

I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
(which I do agree)

Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.

Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
something on the lines of

³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
for as ASN²?

This would cover the use case without opening the floodgates.

Thoughts?

Raf


On 25/2/15 2:33 pm, "Dean Pemberton"  wrote:

>Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
>sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
>If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
>conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
>to just give up issuing visas.
>
>It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
>job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
>resources.  Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
>them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
>the existing policies.
>
>
>Regards,
>Dean
>--
>Dean Pemberton
>
>Technical Policy Advisor
>InternetNZ
>+64 21 920 363 (mob)
>d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
> wrote:
>> Thanks Guangliang for the update,
>>
>>>
>>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
>>> multihomed is as below.
>>>
>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>>
>>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>>
>>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS.
>>>An
>>> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
>>> Exchange Point.
>>>
>>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
>>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It
>>>is
>>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>>
>>
>> So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public
>>IX in
>> place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
>> numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after
>>3
>> months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering
>>with
>> the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email
>>notification
>> to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned
>>your AS
>> to be peer with in future?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui.
>*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
>___
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Skeeve Stevens]

To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it
is to do with flexibility.

I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without
being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenience of being able to add
these things easily.

Lets say I was a company with a /23 and upstream into Telstra Only.  If I
had my own ASN and was announcing to Telstra, then at any time I could add
another ISP, IXP, direct peering without having to go apply for an ASN,
reconfigure my network to bring the announcement in-house, etc.

I also might want to maintain a single provider, but be able to migrate
easily to another provider without having to rely on the providers to do
the "right thing" while changing announcements between them.

I think this policy has VERY valid applications for many smaller entities
to be able to have an ASN without having to be multi-homed either
initially, or maintain that multi-homing.

As Randy used to say - Why do you have the right to tell me how to manage
my network?  If I want to be multi-homed, or change my mind and not be, it
is none of your damn business.

I think this policy change reflects the changing way for businesses to get
online since APNIC has run out of IP's, and are often charging significant
amounts of money - so people are going to APNIC directly - which they are
entitled to do.  And being flexible and being able to change their
circumstances is a more common thing nowadays.

If you want, suggest charging for ASN's... but don't tell networks how they
should be connected at any time.

Btw... I am happy for this to apply ONLY to ASN4 and not ASN2.




...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dean Pemberton 
wrote:

> Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
> sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
> If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
> conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
> to just give up issuing visas.
>
> It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
> job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
> resources.  Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
> them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
> the existing policies.
>
>
> Regards,
> Dean
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>  wrote:
> > Thanks Guangliang for the update,
> >
> >>
> >> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
> >> multihomed is as below.
> >>
> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
> >>
> >> 3.4 Multihomed
> >>
> >> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
> >> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
> >> Exchange Point.
> >>
> >> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
> >> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It
> is
> >> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
> >
> >
> > So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public
> IX in
> > place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
> > numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3
> > months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with
> > the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email
> notification
> > to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned
> your AS
> > to be peer with in future?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aftab A. Siddiqui.
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
to just give up issuing visas.

It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
resources.  Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
the existing policies.


Regards,
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
 wrote:
> Thanks Guangliang for the update,
>
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
>> multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
>> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
>> Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is
>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>
>
> So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in
> place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
> numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3
> months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with
> the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification
> to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS
> to be peer with in future?
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Thanks Guangliang for the update,


> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
> multihomed is as below.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>
> 3.4 Multihomed
>
> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
> Exchange Point.
>
> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is
> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>

So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX
in place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3
months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with
the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification
to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your
AS to be peer with in future?

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Robert Hudson]

On 25 February 2015 at 17:06, Dean Pemberton  wrote:

> Great - Thanks for that.
>
> As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
> I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
>
> I do not support the proposal
>

I concur with Dean - I don't see a requirement for this proposal, given the
clarification of existing policy which has been provided, and thus do not
support the proposal.
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

[Dean Pemberton]

Great - Thanks for that.

As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.

I do not support the proposal


--
Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan  wrote:
> Hi Dean and All,
>
> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of 
> multihomed is as below.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>
> 3.4 Multihomed
>
> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS 
> also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange 
> Point.
>
> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN 
> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is 
> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guangliang
> =
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the 
> ASN eligibility criteria
>
> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the 
> secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here.  If you're not multi-homed then your 
>>>>> routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream.  You may 
>>>>> wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>
>>>> This is not true.
>>>>
>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering 
>>>> relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. 
>>>> These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that 
>>>> one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year  =) ).
>>>
>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute 
>>> multihoming.
>>
>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner 
>> that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>
>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render 
>> this moot.
>>
>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with 
>> related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting 
>> valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>
>>
>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>
>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also 
>> encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a 
>> “unique routing policy”.
>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what
>>> the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
>>> point us to it then it might help.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as 
>>>> stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance 
>>>> in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing 
>>>> requirement from an APNIC perspective.
>>>
>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are.
>>> I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or more other
>>> ASNs"
>>> In which case I think we can go back to agreeing.
>>
>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public 
>> ASNs or via distinct circuits,