> On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: > > Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you. > > You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they > aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for > changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change in > network configuration. > > That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how things > should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do it the > way they want to. > > If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no > restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to.
Even if I agreed with what you have said above, and I do not, this last statement bears no resemblence to the policy you have proposed. If you want to propose a policy that matches your last sentence, I would not oppose that, so long as any additional ASNs had to be issued under the current multihome requirement. However, your proposal doesn’t say someone who has PI space is entitled to 1 ASN. It says anyone who wants one is entitled to as many ASNs as they want. That’s simply a bad idea. Owen * 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
