> On Feb 23, 2015, at 13:34 , Dean Pemberton <[email protected]> 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 single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. For example, two or more ASNs that exchange peering on a private basis, but do not provide transit for each other. There are other possible situations as well, this is just the simplest example. > There are players within the community who will significantly benefit from a > policy framework with a reduced multi-homing and demonstrated needs > requirement, but those entities are not necessarily the end LIRs. More likely, they are end-user organizations rather than LIRs, but so what? Is there a reason not to serve end-user organizations or make their lives easier? > What these two proposals seek to do is remove all barriers to obtaining IPv4 > addresses and ASNs. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. > One of the major problems here is that the authors seek to do this one 'cut' > at a time. Almost in an attempt to avoid waking the tiger which is ARIN's > requirement for needs based allocation, or having the APNIC community > discussion around 'needs based' allocation for IPv4 resources. I don’t agree here. I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. > > I would like to see us stop the subterfuge here. > I think that is an unfair accusation, even though I am not a supporter of the proposals as written. I would support the ASN proposal if it were modified as I previously stated, to require either multihoming or a unique routing policy. I will strongly report the removal of all conditions for the issuance of resources in any case. I would argue that if you’re going to make that claim and insist on discussing this under the terms of your proposed policy, that it is arguably equally dishonest not to include IPv6 in the list as well. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
