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

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

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

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 ; l

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

-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

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

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 fel

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

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, su

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

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: >> >> S

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

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 y

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

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 nu

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

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

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

>> 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-fulfil

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

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

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

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

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

ledge 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 eligib

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

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 exten

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

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 fu

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

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

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/s

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

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

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

t;> 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

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

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 cr

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

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,

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

;? > > 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 Poli

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

> 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-po

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

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

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

> 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 hom

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

; > 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 >>

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

> 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 desi

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

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 experien

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

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. Wh

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

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. >>

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

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 mor

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

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 S

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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 th

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

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 Intern

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

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

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

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 bu

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

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

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

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 no

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

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 > su

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

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 mult

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

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

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

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 confir

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

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

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

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 ma

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

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 Po

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

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 w

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

olicy-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

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

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

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 t

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

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

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, I

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

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.

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

-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, > wh

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

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

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

> 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

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

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,

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

> 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 t

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

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 ti

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

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

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

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 y

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

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

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

> 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

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

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 eintelle

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

= 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

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

> 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, wit

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

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 d

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

> 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 convenien

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

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 -

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

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 en

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

> 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 re

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

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:

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

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

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

t; 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 D

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

ds, > >> > >> 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 &

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

.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 >>

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

=== >> >> -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 >

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

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 > > T

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

: 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 >

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

gt; >> >>> >> 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 multihom

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

s 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 i

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

t; > [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 > > cr

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

ruary 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 ne

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

ect to an IXP. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Guangliang > >> ========= > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto: > sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf

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

-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 remov

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

t; -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 >>

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

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 ;

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

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

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

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 compan

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

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

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

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

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

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

olicy-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 clarifi

  1   2   >