Hi Jordi,

>
> My reading of the actual policy is that it actually enforces the
> multihoming “in a reasonable future”.
>
> An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will
> meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably
> short time thereafter).
>
I still believe it is not enforcement. Because this statement came out of
the policy change which I co-authored :)


> So, the question I’m trying to solve is what if I can’t or don’t want to
> multihome? I’m an SME, I want to have my own IPv6 PI announced with my own
> ASN, however I’m fine not multihoming.
>

I totally agree with your point of view and if you read the first version
[1] of my proposal back in 2015, it was not asking for multihoming
requirement at all but community suggested that there are not enough
evidence to prove that someone will get an ASN and Address space and won't
multihome in the future. You have to show intention as part of the
application requirement. Previously, you were suppose to provide ASN
details where you WILL multihome which was remove after prop-114.

[1] -
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/prop-114/assets/prop-114-v001.txt


>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De: *<sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Aftab Siddiqui <
> aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>
> *Fecha: *jueves, 24 de enero de 2019, 2:28
> *Para: *Policy SIG <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> *Asunto: *Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
> We updated this requirement after a year-long discussion within the
> community. It doesn't enforce you to multi-home but suggests you should in
> the future. I don't see this as a roadblock in receiving PI address space.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:14 AM Bertrand Cherrier <
> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN" has been
> sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 47 in
> Daejeon, South Korea on Wednesday, 27 February 2019.
>
> 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-128
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> ------------------------------
>
> prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN
> ------------------------------
>
> Proposers: Jordi Palet Martínez
> jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com
> 1. Problem Statement
>
> When the ASN assignment policy was originally designed, the reliability
> of networks was not so good as today. So, at that time, it was making
> sense to make sure that and ASN holder is multihomed.
>
> However, today this is not necessarily a reasonable requirement, and
> even in some cases, some networks may require an ASN and not willing
> to be multihomed (because the cost, or remote locations that have only
> a single upstream, etc.), and their SLA requirements don’t need that
> redundancy.
>
> The deployment of IPv6 also increase the need for organizations which
> are not ISPs, to obtain IPv6 PI in order to have stable addresses,
> and in that situation, ideally, they should announce their PI space
> with their own ASN. In most cases, they don’t have to be multihomed.
> 2. Objective of policy change
>
> To ensure that organizations which have their own routing policy and
> the need to interconnect with other organizations, can do it.
>
> Interconnect is used here with the commonly understood meaning of
> establishing a connection between two (administratively) separate
> networks.
> 3. Situation in other regions
>
> ARIN and LACNIC don’t require multihoming. RIPE requires it. AfriNIC has
> a policy equivalent to APNIC, but I’m submitting a proposal similar to
> this one to change it as well as in the case of RIPE.
> 4. Proposed policy solution
>
> Current Policy text
>
> 12.1. Evaluation of eligibility
>
> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if:
> - it is currently multihomed, or
> - it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space and
> intends to multihome in the future.
>
> An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will
> meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably
> short time thereafter).
>
> Requests for ASNs under these criteria will be evaluated using the
> guidelines described in RFC1930 'Guidelines for the creation, selection
> and registration of an Autonomous System' (AS).
>
> Proposed text
>
> 12.1. Evaluation of eligibility
>
> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if:
> - it is multihomed or
> - has the need to interconnect with other AS.
>
> An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will
> meet any
> of the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably
> short time thereafter).
>
> Requests for ASNs under these criteria will be evaluated using the
> guidelines described in RFC1930 'Guidelines for the creation, selection
> and registration of
> an Autonomous System' (AS).
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>
> Advantages:
> Fulfilling the objectives above indicated.
>
> Disadvantages:
> None foreseen.
> 6. Impact on resource holders
>
> None.
> 7. References
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five
> https://www.lacnic.net/683/2/lacnic/
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>    *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to