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 entry.
However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently;
having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate
to a new unique registry assigned ASN. Which you are saying I can't
have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect
to an IX. If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship. But
if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a
fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned
ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which
point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated.
I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there
is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations. I think
maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to
obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being
multi-homed, or connected to an IX.
A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is
multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably
justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw
the line.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
