Re: [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation.
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 secretariat to justify additional ASNs. I humbly request the draft policy authors, the working group community, and the APNIC staff to think carefully about how such policy language will be written, and how such a policy would be implemented. My experiences have taught me that the answer to the question, why do you need an additional AS number? is not easily captured in either policy language or RIR procedures. Why? Because networks are not all built the same. In well-known situations, there are both regulatory and market-based forces which sometimes back network operators into engineering designs which lack polish. Secondly, network architects like to apply creative solutions to complex situations. What this means in the real world of network operations is that just because you would design Network X to use one AS number doesn't mean I designed it that way; my solution calls for two or three AS numbers. And this is important because the RIR (in both its AS number policies and its internal procedures for reviewing requests) needs to recognize that when a network operator states he needs an additional AS number, he probably does. Most importantly, the RIR staff should not be put in a position to have to fully understand a network architecture and be required to adjudicate its worthiness for an additional AS number. Thank you for any consideration you can give to this matter, and I look forward to our discussions this week in Fukuoka. David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2015 5:45:12 PM *Cc:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation. Hi all, Having read (most of) the feedback, Aftab and I will be putting a new version out probably either late Sunday or Early Monday. I am at Haneda Airport flying to Fukuoka now and Aftab arrives in Tokyo and I believe will be arriving tomorrow morning. Once we've had time to confer, we will issue new wording. The object of this policy is to remove the need to be multi-homed to get your */initial/* ASN. It is not designed to hand out ASN's like candy, not provide them to people who have no intention of multi-homing. It is designed for those who wish to announce their portable ranges via their own ASN using whatever routing policy they determine to be appropriate for the operation of their network, but removing the requirement to be immediately multi-homed, but having the intention to multi-home at some point (the timeframe should not be mandated) - whether that be permanently or not is not relevant. Any subsequent allocations would fall under the same criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify additional ASN's. The wording will be based around the above. The cases for this policy are numerous and the reasons Aftab and I are doing this together is to address several of them. - Entities not meeting the multi-homing criteria due to economic circumstances, regional access, etc. - Smaller entities, such as businesses with portable address space that would like more control and flexibility over how they announce their networks, and plan for multi-homing either as a future facility or for cloud/elastic on demand purposes. The major use case from my perspective is: - Due to IP runout (ISPs having less and charging more), and some requirements for being portable, I am assisting *many* businesses become APNIC members and their own address space. Many of these initially are not multi-homed, but are planning to in the short period as they consider the elastic infrastructure available to them over new initiatives like Megaport and others - where layer 2, BGP to many 'service' providers is the new way of doing business. I did a presentation on Megaport and Elastic X-Connect Fabrics at the last APNIC in Brisbane for those who saw it. In Australia (and I am sure other places too), there is the new concept of opportunistic capacity - being able to buy transit on an as-needs basis for any determined time period... 1 week, 1 day, even hourly. An operator might be single homed, but may wish to bring on elastic/On Demand transit capacity for short periods of time - at which point the would be multi-homed, but then disconnect and then be single-homed again. Here is a news article about this offering: http://www.itwire.com/business
Re: [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation.
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 authors, the working group community, and the APNIC staff to think carefully about how such policy language will be written, and how such a policy would be implemented. My experiences have taught me that the answer to the question, why do you need an additional AS number? is not easily captured in either policy language or RIR procedures. Why? Because networks are not all built the same. In well-known situations, there are both regulatory and market-based forces which sometimes back network operators into engineering designs which lack polish. Secondly, network architects like to apply creative solutions to complex situations. What this means in the real world of network operations is that just because you would design Network X to use one AS number doesn't mean I designed it that way; my solution calls for two or three AS numbers. And this is important because the RIR (in both its AS number policies and its internal procedures for reviewing requests) needs to recognize that when a network operator states he needs an additional AS number, he probably does. Most importantly, the RIR staff should not be put in a position to have to fully understand a network architecture and be required to adjudicate its worthiness for an additional AS number. Thank you for any consideration you can give to this matter, and I look forward to our discussions this week in Fukuoka. David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:45:12 PM Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation. Hi all, Having read (most of) the feedback, Aftab and I will be putting a new version out probably either late Sunday or Early Monday. I am at Haneda Airport flying to Fukuoka now and Aftab arrives in Tokyo and I believe will be arriving tomorrow morning. Once we've had time to confer, we will issue new wording. The object of this policy is to remove the need to be multi-homed to get your initial ASN. It is not designed to hand out ASN's like candy, not provide them to people who have no intention of multi-homing. It is designed for those who wish to announce their portable ranges via their own ASN using whatever routing policy they determine to be appropriate for the operation of their network, but removing the requirement to be immediately multi-homed, but having the intention to multi-home at some point (the timeframe should not be mandated) - whether that be permanently or not is not relevant. Any subsequent allocations would fall under the same criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify additional ASN's. The wording will be based around the above. The cases for this policy are numerous and the reasons Aftab and I are doing this together is to address several of them. - Entities not meeting the multi-homing criteria due to economic circumstances, regional access, etc. - Smaller entities, such as businesses with portable address space that would like more control and flexibility over how they announce their networks, and plan for multi-homing either as a future facility or for cloud/elastic on demand purposes. The major use case from my perspective is: - Due to IP runout (ISPs having less and charging more), and some requirements for being portable, I am assisting many businesses become APNIC members and their own address space. Many of these initially are not multi-homed, but are planning to in the short period as they consider the elastic infrastructure available to them over new initiatives like Megaport and others - where layer 2, BGP to many 'service' providers is the new way of doing business. I did a presentation on Megaport and Elastic X-Connect Fabrics at the last APNIC in Brisbane for those who saw it. In Australia (and I am sure other places too), there is the new concept of opportunistic capacity - being able to buy transit on an as-needs basis for any determined time period... 1 week, 1 day, even hourly. An operator might be single homed, but may wish to bring on elastic/On Demand transit capacity for short periods of time - at which point the would be multi-homed, but then disconnect and then be single-homed again. Here is a news article about this offering: http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/networking/65730-intabank-partners-with-megaport Megaport is across Australia ,Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand and heading for the US and Europe - as well
