Owen, I don't want to discuss too much details since I'm acting chair, but I'm afraid that "unique routing policy" is vague and it may qualify some usecases that private AS may also work. So, what is the definition or understanding for "unique routing policy" in ARIN?
Masato Yamanishi Feb 26, 2015 3:14 PM、Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> のメッセージ: > Yes, I was well aware of that. Is there anything you believe to be incorrect > in my comments as a result? Otherwise, I’m not sure what you are getting at. > > I believe a unique routing policy or multiple peers is sufficient > justification. > > Absent that, I believe that an entity which qualifies for PI and intends to > multihome later should legitimately be able to obtain an ASN to simplify > their build-out in anticipation of later multihoming. > > This last part, is, IMHO, the only change that should be contemplated vs. the > current existing policy. > > Owen > >> On Feb 26, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Owen and Usman, >> >> In following comments, did you consider we are discussing "public" AS >> numbers? >> Since we are discussing "public" AS, we should have some kind of >> justifications why it should be globally unique. >> >> Regards, >> Masato >> >> >> 2015-02-25 18:39 GMT-06:00 Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>: >>> Usman, since an AS is defined as “A collection of prefixes with a common >>> routing policy”, what would you use one for if not to connect to other >>> autonomous systems? If you are connecting to a single other autonomous >>> system, then, arguably it is impossible for your prefixes to have a >>> distinct routing policy and you are, therefore, part of that other AS. If >>> you are connecting to multiple other autonomous systems, then, you are, by >>> definition multihomed. >>> >>> If you have some better way to manage this, I’m all ears. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 16:26 , Usman Latif <osma...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> ASN is an identifier for an autonomous system - so theoretically speaking, >>>> an ASN should have no dependency on multihoming or single homing >>>> However, what we need is a better way to regulate assignment of ASNs so >>>> their allocation doesn't become wasteful.. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Usman >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 26 Feb 2015, at 11:16 am, Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Secretariat, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to understand the policy/secretariats view on the >>>>> justification/requirements of subsequent ASN resource requests. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...Skeeve >>>>> >>>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker >>>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service >>>>> ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com >>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >>>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >>>>> >>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>>>> * 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 >>>> * 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 >>> >>> >>> * 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 >>> >> >
* 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
