I support this proposal as it stands. Andrew
On 13 September 2015 at 16:33, Jahangir Hossain <[email protected]> wrote: > I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but > organization should share their future plan of multi-homing to get ASN. > > > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria, >> reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the >> APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). >> >> This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy >> Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list >> for the final Comment Period. >> >> At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments >> made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The >> Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to >> allow further discussion. >> >> If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive >> Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. >> >> - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net> >> - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015 >> >> >> >> Proposal details >> ---------------- >> >> This is a proposal changes the criteria for AS number requests from >> end-user organizations considering multihoming. >> >> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and >> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 >> >> Regards >> >> Masato and Sumon >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> prop-114-v003: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui >> [email protected] >> >> Skeeve Stevens >> [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 >> >> 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 >> >> 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 >> >> >> 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 >> ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s >> in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with >> ‘work around’ 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 >> >> > > > -- > *Regards / Jahangir * > > * 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
