> On Aug 7, 2015, at 02:34 , Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> ## It is NOT new version, just a reminder that this proposal will be
> discussed at APNIC 40
>
> Version 3 of this proposal was posted to the mailing list during
> APNIC 39. The proposal did not reach consensus and discussion will
> continue at APNIC 40.
>
>
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>
> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114
> <https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114>
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Masato
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-114-v003: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Skeeve Stevens
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> --------------------
>
> The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and
> that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain 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 where they still
> have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN.
>
>
> 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 providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -----------------------------
>
> ARIN:
> It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN
This is misleading.
In ARIN you must meet one of the two criteria:
Multihome
Unique Routing Policy
So it is optional to be multi-homed _IF_ you have a unique routing policy.
>
> RIPE:
> Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion
> and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision)
> Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03
> <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 organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if:
>
> - they are currently multi-homed, OR
>
> - have previous allocated provider independent address space by
> APNIC, AND intend to multi-home in the future
>
I support this as written, though I would recommend adding:
…, OR
- have a unique routing policy
Examples where Unique Routing Policy may be necessary include things like
transit marketplaces where you may select only a single provider for transit
and may
not peer with more than one provider at any given time, but you still have a
unique
routing policy and are (potentially) changing providers more frequently than
could
be rationally facilitated without BGP and an ASN.
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -----------------------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC
> Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions
> based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid
> request.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain
> ASN¹s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN¹s
> in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with
> Œwork around¹ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have
> any effect.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> -----------------------------
>
> No impact on existing resource holders.
>
> * 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
