I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are "not multihomed" as they use the same provider. I am not sure if the current proposal allows for assignment of a public ASN for the above situation? If not, then this should be brought into scope because controlling traffic and AS-loops using private ASNs becomes challenging for organisations that have single-homed-but-multiple-links-to-same-provider-scenarios Regards, Usman > On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:10 pm, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is where the big different in philosophy is. > > I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be > multi-homed - 'at some point' > > Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you > are ready. > > Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my > networks - and telling me when I should do the work. > > > ...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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> It did say "immediate future". >> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that >> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would >> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. >> >> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome", >> then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says >> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are >> closer to peering. >> >> Dean >> -- >> 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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Guangliang, >> > >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom >> > they may or may not multhome in future. right? >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui >> > >> > * 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
