Hi Aftab, Thanks for your comment. Sorry for the late reply.
As agreed by the community, prop-138: Restricting AS-ID in ROA was implemented as a guideline, not a policy. As with other active guidelines, this guideline is intended to be a reference (BCP) for prefix holders to manage route, route6 and ROAs in the APNIC Whois database. Regards, Sunny From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 7 December 2021 10:32 PM To: Srinivas Chendi <su...@apnic.net> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] APNIC EC endorses policy proposals from APNIC 52 Hi Sunny, prop-138: Restricting AS-ID in ROA, that reached consensus at APNIC 52 to be a guideline will also be implemented along with these four proposals. As per this link here<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2Fprop-138%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C065447d1dfec44b01f2d08d9b97d962e%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637744771312518558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=GjmRNalFQAVOyBN5eiwTsch4wOkBX%2Bh%2Fl0OOra83soM%3D&reserved=0> [1], APNIC secretariat updated the guidelines on 6th December. The text mentioned there does not comply with what is suggested in the prop-138. I can still create ROAs and route/route6 objects using the ROA interface. [1] - https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-138/<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fcommunity%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2Fprop-138%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C065447d1dfec44b01f2d08d9b97d962e%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637744771312518558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=GjmRNalFQAVOyBN5eiwTsch4wOkBX%2Bh%2Fl0OOra83soM%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list -- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
