Sorry, to clarify. There is already an existing process for subsequent ASN process which the secretariat follows (I think?). I am not intending on changing anything to do with that... just the initial ASN allocation.
...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 ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, David Huberman < [email protected]> 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:* [email protected] < > [email protected]> on behalf of Skeeve Stevens < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2015 5:45:12 PM > *Cc:* [email protected] > *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 > [email protected] ; www.v4now.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui >> [email protected] >> >> Skeeve Stevens >> [email protected] >> >> >> 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 >> [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
