What he said...
Mark.
On 28/Feb/15 05:25, David Huberman wrote:
Hello,
[Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.]
Regarding your sentence:
Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the
same criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the
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
Hello,
[Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.]
Regarding your sentence:
Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the same
criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify
additional ASNs.
I humbly request the draft policy
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
On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn 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
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,
That was bad planning :(. I was thinking of doing a lightening, but policy
is more important.
...Skeeve
On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz
wrote:
We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning
talks on Thursday.
It will be
That's what we strive for.
Something for everyone :)
On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com
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
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
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
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
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 shen...@cnnic.cn wrote:
Owen,
What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'?
Jessica
20 matches
Mail list logo
