Actually the RFC makes this clear.
There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as "BEST
CURRENT PRACTICE". Please someone let me know if I've missed an
obsolescence here.
All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and
should almost never happen". If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no
longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try
and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a
departure from documented current best practice.
5.1 Sample Cases
* Single-homed site, single prefix
A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an
AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-
ing policy as the other customers of the site's service
provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-
ing information.
This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-
lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a
representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of
administrative use.
In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find
it necessary to have a policy different from that of its
provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-
rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-
tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites
require different routing policies than their parents. Because
the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.
* Single-homed site, multiple prefixes
Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be
placed in an AS of the site's provider.
* Multi-homed site
Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes
which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than
one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network
multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.
An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a
single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.
This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-
sentation of policy and preference among the different service
providers.
This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should
create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure
that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing
protocols, such as BGP4.
--
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 Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
> Owen,
>
> But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)?
>
> I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able
> to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their
> upstream connectivity at any particular time.
>
>
> ...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 Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , 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)
>>
>> What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they
>> actually need it?
>>
>> > Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
>> > guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
>>
>> They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN
>> before they need one.
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand
>> why they need one
>> ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> * 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
