Hi Owen,

 

To make it short I’m not going to go into all the details, as I don't think is 
needed.

 

The point is, I’ve no doubt that the staff is smart to allow two consecutive 
requests for addresses first and one instant after the ASN. However, this is 
totally artificial in my opinion. No need for that.

 

Second main issue. Yes, people can commit fraud, but policies should not 
“facilitate that” if we can avoid it. Asking people to say “I will multihome”, 
is not coherent if not verified, so let’s try to avoid “promises”.


Regards,

Jordi

 

 

 

De: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
Fecha: viernes, 22 de febrero de 2019, 19:00
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>, Policy SIG 
<sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

 

 



On Feb 21, 2019, at 22:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> 
wrote:

 

Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the inputs,

 

If we keep “it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space”, 
then it means an organization, for example, deploying only IPv6, will not be 
able to get an ASN.

 

Why can’t they get previously-allocated IPv6 Provider Independent space?

 

Or even an organization willing to get IPv4, can’t get it from APNIC. Should 
them then wait for available IPv4 space and not have their own ASN meanwhile?

 

If they don’t have address space to advertise, what, exactly, are they going to 
use the AS Number for in the mean time?

 

I’m not opposed to deleting the phrase, but I am truly curious if you have an 
actual use case where removing it is harmful.

 

Or should they “promise” “I will multihome” and actually never do it? (there is 
no a concrete time term defined in the policy).

 

Ideally, no.

 

Or going to the extreme. Should the organization get IPv4 PI, but actually not 
use it?

 

This part still doesn’t make sense to me. The phrase mentioned does not specify 
IPv4, yet you seem to be assuming that is a requirement. Am I missing something?

 

Or should the organization request IPv6 PI today and tomorrow an ASN ? It is 
artificial!

 

Previously doesn’t necessarily mean separation by days. I think that the RIR 
staff can be trusted to accept applications contemporaneously and issue the 
addresses first, followed by he ASN, thus meeting the requirement in the policy.

 

If you have a better way to address the issue they are bringing up, then 
propose that and let’s discuss it as a community.

 

As I understand their message, the concern is issuing ASNs that have no actual 
use/need. I don’t think anyone is trying to put up artificial barriers to 
entry, but there is a desire to ensure that ASN acquisition doesn’t become some 
form of network fashion statement.

 

If we really want to ensure that those organizations multihome, we really need 
to fix in how much time, and that was already changed in proposal 114. I think 
this proposal improves that, going to the point where probably prop-114 wanted 
to be (but sometimes you need to go step by step …).

 

I seem to recall Skeeve put forth a proposal to eliminate the multihoming 
requirement some years back because it was becoming problematic in a number of 
situations where peering was desirable, but multihoming couldn’t necessarily be 
achieved (or at least had a longer than permitted time frame).

 

At the time, I had suggested the use of “Multihomed or otherwise demonstrate a 
unique routing policy.” which actually pretty well covers any situation in 
which you would need an ASN.

 

In general, I don’t think restricting non-scarce resources as ASN is a good 
thing, and if that happens APNIC should report it back to the community and 
then we may consider it back.

 

Having trouble parsing this sentence. If restriction of the resources occurs, 
it will be through policy, so I’m not sure what APNIC would need to report back 
to the community.

 

Current text is artificial in the sense that already prop-114 expressed. People 
can just lie “I will …”.

 

People can commit fraud in a number of ways in a variety of circumstances. I 
don’t think that the answer in most situations is to permit all the benefits by 
removing the rules to make it impossible to commit fraud (or at least 
pointless). It’s sort of like saying “Everyone on this freeway is always doing 
200Kph, therefore we should raise the speed limit to 200Kph.” If someone 
obtains resources from a falsified application, then they are committing fraud 
and I’m sure the APNIC legal team is quite capable of addressing that situation 
should sufficient evidence come to light.

 

Owen




Regards,

Jordi

 

 

 

De: <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki 
<satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>
Fecha: viernes, 22 de febrero de 2019, 12:30
Para: Policy SIG <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.

 

I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-128,

based on a meeting we organized on 12th Feb to discuss these proposals.

 

Substantial support expressed, subject to not deleting the 

"it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space" 

described in the current policy text.

 

* In this proposal, "it holds previously-allocated provider independent 

address space" is erased. it should keep it in order to prevent unnecessary

application of AS number.

 

* In the case of IPv6, the NAT disappears and the global address is assigned

to all device in the organization. If each organization uses a PI address

that is not locked in to a upper provider, there is a great merit that

there is no need to procure the second transit.

 

*There are areas where have only one transit as pointed out by the proposer.

This proposal has the effect that policy conforms to the actual situation

as a result.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Satoru Tsurumaki

JPOPF-ST

 

2019年1月22日(火) 9:14 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>:

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






**********************************************
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