Hi Izumi,
The option "b" is acceptable.
b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
at the time of submitting a request
Thanks,
Guangliang
=========
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
Sent: Friday, 27 February 2015 2:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the
ASN eligibility criteria
Hi all,
I agree with the suggested approach from the chair.
Raphael's earlier post was really helpful in understanding the situation. Thank
you Raphael.
> 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)
I sympathize with this too.
I can see cases where an applicant plans to be multihomed but not multi-homed
at the time of the application.
May I clarify with APNIC hosmaster whether :
a. It is a must for an applicant to be multihomed at the time of
submitting the request
b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
at the time of submitting a request
In case of JPNIC, it is b.
- We approve the ASN assignments if an applicant can demonstrate the
*plan* to be multihomed within three months.
I wonder taking approach b (accept a plan to be multihomed) addresses
the problem described by Raphael (and Aftab) ?
Regards,
Izumi
On 2015/02/27 7:03, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> Skeeve,
>
> As acting chair, I'm neutral for each proposal, but even for me, proposed
> text sounds everybody can get AS by just saying "I need it within 6 months"
> without any explanation howto use it.
> If your intension is covering more usecases, but not allowing for everyone,
> can you tweak proposed text?
>
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
>> - Is planning to use it within next 6 months
>
> Masato Yamanishi
>
>
> Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> のメッセージ:
>
>> Dean,
>>
>> What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.
>>
>> "You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes".
>> I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this -
>> WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed.
>>
>> The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either
>> lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using
>> HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network.
>>
>> You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away
>> because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in
>> that way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...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 ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>>
>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they
>>>> manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
>>>
>>> I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.
>>>
>>> It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to
>>> getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy. This fact has
>>> been supported by the current hostmasters. Operators currently have the
>>> freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an
>>> ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes.
>>>
>>> There is no change in policy required.
>>>
>>> I strongly oppose this policy as written.
>>
>> * 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
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
