What he said... Mark.
On 28/Feb/15 05:25, David Huberman wrote: > Hello, > > [Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.] > > Regarding your sentence: > > "Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the > same criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the > secretariat to justify additional ASNs." > > I humbly request the draft policy authors, the working group > community, and the APNIC staff to think carefully about how such > policy language will be written, and how such a policy would be > implemented. > > My experiences have taught me that the answer to the question, "why do > you need an additional AS number?" is not easily captured in either > policy language or RIR procedures. Why? Because networks are not all > built the same. > > In well-known situations, there are both regulatory and market-based > forces which sometimes back network operators into engineering designs > which lack polish. Secondly, network architects like to apply creative > solutions to complex situations. What this means in the real world of > network operations is that just because you would design Network X to > use one AS number doesn't mean I designed it that way; my solution > calls for two or three AS numbers. And this is important because the > RIR (in both its AS number policies and its internal procedures for > reviewing requests) needs to recognize that when a network operator > states he needs an additional AS number, he probably does. > > Most importantly, the RIR staff should not be put in a position to > have to fully understand a network architecture and > be required to adjudicate its worthiness for an additional AS number. > > Thank you for any consideration you can give to this matter, and I > look forward to our discussions this week in Fukuoka. > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Principal, Global IP Addressing > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net > <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> on behalf of Skeeve Stevens > <ske...@v4now.com> > *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2015 5:45:12 PM > *Cc:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > *Subject:* [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility > criteria - explanation. > > Hi all, > > Having read (most of) the feedback, Aftab and I will be putting a new > version out probably either late Sunday or Early Monday. I am at > Haneda Airport flying to Fukuoka now and Aftab arrives in Tokyo and I > believe will be arriving tomorrow morning. Once we've had time to > confer, we will issue new wording. > > The object of this policy is to remove the need to be multi-homed to > get your */initial/* ASN. It is not designed to hand out ASN's like > candy, not provide them to people who have no intention of multi-homing. > > It is designed for those who wish to announce their portable ranges > via their own ASN using whatever routing policy they determine to be > appropriate for the operation of their network, but removing the > requirement to be immediately multi-homed, but having the intention to > multi-home at some point (the timeframe should not be mandated) - > whether that be permanently or not is not relevant. > > Any subsequent allocations would fall under the same criteria, plus > the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify > additional ASN's. > > The wording will be based around the above. > > The cases for this policy are numerous and the reasons Aftab and I are > doing this together is to address several of them. > > - Entities not meeting the multi-homing criteria due to economic > circumstances, regional access, etc. > > - Smaller entities, such as businesses with portable address space > that would like more control and flexibility over how they announce > their networks, and plan for multi-homing either as a future facility > or for cloud/elastic on demand purposes. > > The major use case from my perspective is: > > - Due to IP runout (ISPs having less and charging more), and some > requirements for being portable, I am assisting *many* businesses > become APNIC members and their own address space. Many of these > initially are not multi-homed, but are planning to in the short period > as they consider the elastic infrastructure available to them over new > initiatives like Megaport and others - where layer 2, BGP to many > 'service' providers is the new way of doing business. I did a > presentation on Megaport and Elastic X-Connect Fabrics at the last > APNIC in Brisbane for those who saw it. > > In Australia (and I am sure other places too), there is the new > concept of opportunistic capacity - being able to buy transit on an > as-needs basis for any determined time period... 1 week, 1 day, even > hourly. An operator might be single homed, but may wish to bring on > elastic/On Demand transit capacity for short periods of time - at > which point the would be multi-homed, but then disconnect and then be > single-homed again. > > Here is a news article about this > offering: > http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/networking/65730-intabank-partners-with-megaport > > Megaport is across Australia ,Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand and > heading for the US and Europe - as well as other elastic fabrics such > as Pacnet's PEN, Equinix Cloud Exchange, IX Australia and others > coming. This way of doing business will be commonplace for businesses > in certain regions rapidly over 2015 - especially as > > To cater for this explosion in elastic fabrics and marketplaces that > serve them, the policy framework has to facilitate a smooth way of > doing this new 'cloud' kind of business - without businesses having to > 'fudge the truth' to get thr required resources. > > APNIC has ability to do rapid memberships within a very short period > (1 day) with address space and ASN's up and running very quickly. > > This is the key reason for my proposed change to policies 113 and 114, > as well as supporting Aftabs motivations on assisting smaller > providers in regional areas, or economically challenged locations > where multi-homing is not as easy as it might be elsewhere, prepare > their networks to participate in being multi-homed for the standard > reasons. > > If you have any comments about this, or have any advice on wording, > restrictions, we would love to hear from you by tomorrow PM so we can > consider your thoughts and also any perceived problems with the policy > and (preferably) with ways to meet the need, but deal with any > potential abuse. > > Thanks. > > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* > *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service > ske...@v4now.com <mailto:ske...@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com > <http://www.v4now.com/> > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/v4now > <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; 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 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui > aftab.siddi...@gmail.com > <mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> > > Skeeve Stevens > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com > <mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.com> > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > > The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility > criteria > and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy > seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and > clearly > defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has > created much confusion in interpreting the policy. > > As a result organizations have either provided incorrect > information > to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to > modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN > assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the > organization. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > ARIN: > It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order > get ASN > > RIPE: > Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in > discussion > and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 > Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > > LACNIC: > only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing > > AFRINIC: > It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: > - Is planning to use it within next 6 months > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the > policy will > make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong > information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility. > > Disadvantages: > > No disadvantage. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > > No impact on existing resource holders. > > > 7. References > ------------- > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management > policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto: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
