On 2/27/15 17:41 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer <far...@umn.edu> wrote:
Don't allocated one if they don't want one. But if they want one, and they
already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no? And its not regardless
of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need.
Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done.
Sorry, let me try one more time.
What you are suggesting *IS* regardless of need, and thats what I
think people are missing.
If you are not required to demonstrate need to get something, then it
is allocated regardless of need.
I realise this might seem semantic, but policy is all about semantics.
On this we agree.
This 'anticipation of future need' stuff is at best ethereal and at
worst a fallacy. Lets not forget that there is an almost zero barrier
to entry with regard to ASN allocation should the member require one.
I just don't subscribe to this "I may one day require one so give it
to me now"
If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing
requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally
anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling. I'm
suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for
an ASN. The PI assignment and what every justified that should also
equally justify the need for ASN assignment. The PI assignment was
intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to
facilitate that portability. I'm saying that the need for portability
is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing.
It's the same as saying "I don't require an IPv6 allocation today, but
I anticipate that at some point I'll need a /10. Just give it all to
me now so that I don't have to make difficult design decisions later."
If everyone gets one then I can live with that. What I can't live
with is opening up a can of worms with a "I might one day need
something so please allocate it now". It's a dangerous slippery
slope. Today ASNs, Tomorrow IPv4, next day IPv6.
It's not that I only might need it, in my opinion it is fundamentally
necessary to fulfill the portability of the PI assignment. No need to
move the assignment within the routing system, no need for portability
and no need for an ASN. But, if you make a PI assignment without
allowing me an ASN you've limited its portability and the useability for
its intended purpose. Making a PI assignment implies to me, it can be
picked up and moved within the routing system, assigning an ASN is
needed to facilitate that movement.
However, looked at through the lens of multi-homing, portability itself
is only a future need. You have to look beyond multi-homing, not
abandon the idea of need, to understand what I'm trying say.
But, I probably only dug the whole deeper. :) So, I'll stop now.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
* 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
