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
[email protected] ; www.v4now.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/v4now ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Raphael Ho <[email protected]>
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 require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)
>
> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
>
> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
>
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?
>
> This would cover the use case without opening the floodgates.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Raf
>
>
> On 25/2/15 2:33 pm, "Dean Pemberton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
> >job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
> >resources.  Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
> >them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
> >the existing policies.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Dean
> >--
> >Dean Pemberton
> >
> >Technical Policy Advisor
> >InternetNZ
> >+64 21 920 363 (mob)
> >[email protected]
> >
> >To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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 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 if your network only connect to an IXP.
> >>
> >>
> >> So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public
> >>IX in
> >> place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
> >> numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after
> >>3
> >> months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering
> >>with
> >> the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email
> >>notification
> >> to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned
> >>your AS
> >> to be peer with in future?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Aftab A. Siddiqui.
> >*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> >    *
> >_______________________________________________
> >sig-policy mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>    *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to