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
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
Usman, since an AS is defined as “A collection of prefixes with a common
routing policy”, what would you use one for if not to connect to other
autonomous systems? If you are connecting to a single other autonomous system,
then, arguably it is impossible for your prefixes to have a distinct
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
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:06 , 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.
Agreed… However, it does allow one to basically get ASNs no matter
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
ASN is an identifier for an autonomous system - so theoretically speaking, an
ASN should have no dependency on multihoming or single homing
However, what we need is a better way to regulate assignment of ASNs so their
allocation doesn't become wasteful..
Regards,
Usman
On 26 Feb 2015, at
Hi Skeeve,
I don’t think the current policy mention about subsequent ASN assignment. Every
ASN assignment is requested to meet the multihoming requirement.
For additional ASN requests, the requestors have to provide justification to
show that their new AS is independent to their existing AS.
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 d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
Thanks for that Guangliang. Thats really helped to clarify the
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 gau...@lahai.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guangliang,
can you
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 ;
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
ske...@v4now.commailto:ske...@v4now.com wrote:
Guangliang,
What are the rules about someone with a ASN, later de-multi-homing?
...Skeeve
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 ;
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
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
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
-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
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 ;
-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
27 matches
Mail list logo
