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 sanj...@dcs1.biz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:43 PM, 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
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com
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 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
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
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
On Feb 27, 2015, at 00:22, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz 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
-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
On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani iz...@nic.ad.jp 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
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
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
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
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,
发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
收件人: Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn
抄送: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu, 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 shen...@cnnic.cn wrote
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
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
session.
Jessica Shen
-原始邮件-
发件人: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六)
收件人: Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn
抄送: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN
eligibility
On 2/27/15 17:41 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu 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
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
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
@lists.apnic.net javascript:;
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Izumi Okutani iz...@nic.ad.jp 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
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
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
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 d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time.
- Large organizations
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
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,
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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau
linkedin.com/in/skeeve
-
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
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
On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com 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
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
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 -
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
On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer far...@umn.edu 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
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
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:46 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com 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
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com 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
On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:50 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com 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
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
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho raphael...@ap.equinix.com 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
] 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
- 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
[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
: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto: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
=
-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
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
...@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
@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
-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
- 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
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
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
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong 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
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
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
On 25 February 2015 at 17:06, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz 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
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
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
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 ;
] [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
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
I¹m with Dean on both counts.
My opinion is, if you are buying a single homed transit + peering, you are
multihoming.
However, if you are sub-allocated addresses from your upstream (non
portable) + peering, you are doing something undesirable (in my personal
opinion. Yours personal opinion may
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.
Secondly, In considering this policy proposal in conjunction with prop-113,
I am increasingly doubtful
I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical,
but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing
policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem
statement.
Owen
On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:07, Skeeve Stevens
Dean,
Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support.
...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 ;
I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster...
We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody
has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.
Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking
Rather than being a laughing matter this proposal seeks to hand out ASNs
with no more justification than I want one.
Can the authors explain why they feel radical change to existing policy is
required?
On Friday, 6 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote:
hahahahahahahahahah
You're right that it's just one data point.
I'd encourage anyone with any further information to present it.
At the moment I'm not seeing the requirement here.
On Friday, 6 February 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from
hahahahahahahahahah
...to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not
here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands
that everyone is present.
This made my morning.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks
I support this proposal as well.
Regards,
Usman
From: Job Snijders j...@instituut.net
To: Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com
Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015, 7:19
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the
ASN
Changing or removing the rules is not the way to address people submitting
invalid or misleading information.
Also I doubt that the hostmasters would be 'aware' of a case. If they were
then the question would be why did they approve the resource application.
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015,
Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to
apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have
interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do
contact APNIC, and those who are not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/3/15 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
so the little hack above should be
- Is planning to use it within next 6 months
^ for multi-homing
make it applicable only for 32 bits ASNs.
(duck)
- -gaurab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
Hi Dean,
Thanks for raising the question.
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member
has not made a resource application
I did actually think that... but Aftab rightly pointed out that there are
people who still can use them, due to their own equipment or due to their
upstreams.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239
Hi Randy,
i liked dean's question. is there actually a problem? have folk who
really needed asns not been able to get one under current policy?
Even, I liked Dean's question and would like to see what data hostmasters
have on this.
randy, thinking of reintroducing the no more policies
82 matches
Mail list logo
