I support the concept that AS number allocation rules should be relaxed,
but I think further work is required to properly define the residual
criteria for allocation.
Having read the past month's discussion about prop-114, I'll make some
observations:
Let's not treat 4 billion (4-byte) AS numbers as precious. They're only
route attributes, and not actual routes, and they can only be used with
BGP routing, so their utility is high restricted, and their potential
for direct abuse limited. (Large numbers of AS numbers by themselves
don't explode routing tables, for example.)
If we consume 10,000 per year globally, then it will be 400,000 years
before we exhaust the space - so I think we can afford some waste. We
also only allocate AS numbers as individual numbers, and not as blocks
of thousands or millions in the way we did for IPv4, and so greatly
reducing the chance for massive waste.
We could argue back and forth what constitutes "appropriate" use of an
AS number, but I see limited value in doing so given the enormous space
now available (for 4-byte ASs); I feel the pragmatics outweigh the
principles here.
I therefore believe it is not worth the Hostmasters' time (and therefore
the members' money) to make onerous checks on whether AS numbers are
being or will be used in a "suitable" way. I'd rather see fees charged
to put the onus on the requester to decide whether they really needed
the AS. A cap on the number of ASs per account could also be imposed if
considered warranted.
So I feel that:
- 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing
checks removed;
- Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be
charged as a disincentive for frivolous requests.
- Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per
account;
- Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per
account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per
AS per year.
- Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs
Regards,
David Woodgate
On 4/02/2015 4:57 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
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
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