Hi Nikolas,
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Nikolas Pediaditis wrote:
> Please allow me to provide some clarification.
>
> I can confirm that the RIPE NCC does take future deployments into account and
> AS Numbers can be assigned in advance.
>
> Regarding this specific case, there
Dear Aled, Gert, all,
Please allow me to provide some clarification.
I can confirm that the RIPE NCC does take future deployments into account and
AS Numbers can be assigned in advance.
Regarding this specific case, there was a miscommunication that we have now
clarified directly in the
>
> Huh.
> So I was wondering if you realized that the outcome of your proposal was
> “all requests for an AS must be satisfied immediately”.
> But this sure looks like that is precisely what you meant.
> If that’s not what you meant, you might want to explain what the approval
> constraints
Hi all,
I've already drafted a policy proposal to make a change on this, but if I got
it correctly, the chairs were believing that it was not needed, so I never
officially submitted it.
I'm happy to submit it again.
It may be interesting for all the list participants to read my policy
> On May 7, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
>
> Possibility to have AS in advance - it's operator freedom in actions.
> Anybody can be applicant for AS.
Huh.
So I was wondering if you realized that the outcome of your proposal was “all
requests for an AS must be satisfied
Hi Paul,
> I personally have no problem with making it easier to obtain an AS if you
> intend to multihome at some point in the future (measured in years if
> necessary - let people who want to do the Right Thing from day one do that).
> There are plenty of 32 bit AS numbers available, they
>
> Please keep your language polite. As I already said - let's ask Marco
> and Andrea for feedback what happened, and whether they need some sort
> of guidance statement and/or wording change for us.
> And, please, do proper quoting. "fullquote-style" is frowned upon here.
> Attachments area
Hi,
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:16:11PM +0300, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
> > Please keep your language polite. As I already said - let's ask Marco
> > and Andrea for feedback what happened, and whether they need some sort
> > of guidance statement and/or wording change for us.
> > And, please, do
I explain a little more detailed.
Obtained in advance AS has about zero cost.
Real network resources has a solid costs. Resources should be registered at
first, like we register a firm before start to do something. We need some
lawful resource ability confirmation at first.
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at
Hi,
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:51:13PM +0300, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
> It is very strange situation, when network component is ready and we should
> wait some time while obtaining AS. It's bullshit of office clerk.
Please keep your language polite. As I already said - let's ask Marco
and
I strongly take position that at least one AS any company may have in
advance. It's nothing, but it's make further pain is void.
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 16:55, Hansen, Christoffer
wrote:
>
> On 07/05/2019 14:18, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg wrote:
> > I'm in the process of helping a startup
On 07/05/2019 14:18, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg wrote:
> I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and
> resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS
> guidelines RIPE-679, specifically:
>
> *A network must be multihomed in order to qualify
Hi,
On 07/05/2019 14:34, Dominik Nowacki wrote:
Hi Maxim,
What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried
several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from
using a default route instead ?
Nothing, of course.
But it is a little hard to announce your
>What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried
several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from
using a default route instead ?
When build process is done, it should start work.
It is very strange situation, when network component is ready and we
Hi Maxim,
What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried several
years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from using a
default route instead ?
With Kind Regards,
Dominik Nowacki
Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales.
Hi, all!
Since time when AS was obtained to time when network will become multihomed
may passed some time, up to several years.
It's mean several kilometers of cables should be buried in the ground
before it happens. In some cases. Or the same onether kinds of tasks should
be done.
It's not mean
Hi,
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 01:18:14PM +0100, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg
wrote:
> I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and
> resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS
> guidelines RIPE-679, specifically:
>
> *A network must be
Aled,
You could come up with a policy proposal to change the wording. With that’s
said I wouldn’t say this is required. This is a common sense issue. Naturally
if you can prove you’re multihoming the future network, so you have two ASNa
that will peer with $NEWAS and they are happy to confirm
Hi all
I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and
resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS
guidelines RIPE-679, specifically:
*A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.*
The application for an AS number has been
> Policy proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation" is now in
> the Review Phase.
/me supports
we are here to do what we can to make the internet work. this helps by
making connectivity as available as possible given the circumstances.
randy
20 matches
Mail list logo
