I’m not opposed to qualifying some cases where private AS may also work, because in those cases, frankly, I think most organizations will either use a private AS rather than go to the trouble of applying, or, they may have a good reason (future plans, etc.) for wanting to get a public AS and not have to re-run all their peering sessions later.
Owen > On Feb 26, 2015, at 13:40 , Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> 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 <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; www.v4now.com >>>>> <http://www.v4now.com/> >>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 >>>>> <tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383> ; skype://skeeve <> >>>>> facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; >>>>> <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>>>> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> >>>>> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: >>>>> www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> >>>>> >>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>>>> * >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>>> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>>> * >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >>> >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> <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
