[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: afrinic-rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] Fwd: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility crit
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong ! com>
Date: 2015-02-09 0:36:17
Message-ID: 9D8E86FC-97DA-4E4F-9A00-196A141CD0CF () delong ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
All of those would be covered by the "unique routing policy" language that I \
proposed.
On the other hand, prop-114 as written in the APNIC region proposes "I want an \
ASN"… "OK, here you go."
I think that allowing anyone who wants one to get an ASN without any real need is not \
a good idea.
Owen
> On Feb 7, 2015, at 23:10 , Noah Maina <mainanoa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would support such a proposal.
>
> 1. There are situations where an organisation requires an ASN so that they can at \
> most singlehome to one provider due to budget constraints in terms of the no. of \
> upstream carriers they can connect too. This is very very common today.
> 2. Some upstream providers have diverse paths or redundancies and as such an \
> organisation could opt to go for such a provider knowing that there transit service \
> would be guaranteed as long as they have a stable interconnect to such an upstream \
> provider.
> 3. An organisation would chose to multihome to a single upstream but to different \
> sites of the same upstream...how about that..!!!
> 4. One could justify the 2 upstream providers requirement to Afrinic for \
> instance...but a few months down the finance year, they decided to terminate a \
> contract with one upstream and stick with the other....Afrinic won't come calling \
> as its not their business anywhere....thus it makes no sense emphasising 2 upstream \
> providers as a criteria for getting an ASN because of the dynamics of business \
> today.....
> My 2 cents....
>
> Noah
>
> On 8 Feb 2015 06:39, "Ernest" <ernest@afrinic.net <mailto:ernest@afrinic.net>> \
> wrote: FYI - this could be of interest in our region.
>
> The proposal removes the need to multi-home as the only criteria to
> receive an ASN, replaces it with:
>
> " An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if is planning
> to use it within next 6 months "
>
> More below.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
> > aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com <mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>
> >
> > Skeeve Stevens
> > skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
> >
> >
> > 1. Problem statement
> > --------------------
> >
> > The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria
> > and both should be fulfilled in order to get 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.
> >
> >
> > 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 removing multi-homing requirement for the organization.
> >
> >
> > 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
> > 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 organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
> > - Is planning to use it within next 6 months
> >
> >
> > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > Advantages:
> >
> > Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will
> > make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong
> > information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility.
> >
> > Disadvantages:
> >
> > No disadvantage.
> >
> >
> > 6. Impact on resource holders
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > No impact on existing resource holders.
> >
> >
> > 7. References
> > -------------
> >
> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy \
> > <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd@afrinic.net <mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd \
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd> \
> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
> rpd@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
[Attachment #5 (unknown)]
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html \
charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; \
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">All of those would be covered by the \
"unique routing policy" language that I proposed.<div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">On the other hand, prop-114 as written in the APNIC \
region proposes "I want an ASN"… "OK, here you go."</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">I think that allowing anyone who wants one to get an ASN \
without any real need is not a good idea.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div \
class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote \
type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 7, 2015, at 23:10 , Noah Maina <<a \
href="mailto:mainanoa@gmail.com" class="">mainanoa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br \
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">I would support \
such a proposal.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">1. There are situations where an \
organisation requires an ASN so that they can at most singlehome to one provider due \
to budget constraints in terms of the no. of upstream carriers they can connect \
too. This is very very common today. </p><p dir="ltr" class="">2. Some upstream \
providers have diverse paths or redundancies and as such an organisation could opt to \
go for such a provider knowing that there transit service would be guaranteed as long \
as they have a stable interconnect to such an upstream provider.</p><p dir="ltr" \
class="">3. An organisation would chose to multihome to a single upstream but to \
different sites of the same upstream...how about that..!!!</p><p dir="ltr" \
class="">4. One could justify the 2 upstream providers requirement to Afrinic for \
instance...but a few months down the finance year, they decided to terminate a \
contract with one upstream and stick with the other....Afrinic won't come calling as \
its not their business anywhere....thus it makes no sense emphasising 2 upstream \
providers as a criteria for getting an ASN because of the dynamics of business \
today.....</p><p dir="ltr" class="">My 2 cents....</p><p dir="ltr" class="">Noah</p> \
<div class="gmail_quote">On 8 Feb 2015 06:39, "Ernest" <<a \
href="mailto:ernest@afrinic.net" class="">ernest@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br \
type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">FYI - this could be of interest in \
our region.<br class=""> <br class="">
The proposal removes the need to multi-home as the only criteria to<br class="">
receive an ASN, replaces it with:<br class="">
<br class="">
" An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if is planning<br class="">
to use it within next 6 months "<br class="">
<br class="">
More below.<br class="">
<br class="">
> -----------------------------------------------------------<br class="">
> prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria<br class="">
> -----------------------------------------------------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui<br class="">
> <a \
href="mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com" class="">aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com</a><br \
class=""> ><br class="">
> Skeeve Stevens<br \
class=""> > <a \
href="mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com" \
class="">skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com</a><br class=""> ><br class="">
><br class="">
> 1. Problem statement<br class="">
> --------------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility \
criteria<br class=""> > and both should be fulfilled in order \
to get an ASN. The policy<br class=""> > seems to imply that \
both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly<br class=""> > \
defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has<br class=""> \
> created much confusion in interpreting the policy.<br \
class=""> ><br class="">
> As a result organizations have either provided incorrect \
information<br class=""> > to get the ASN or barred themselves \
from applying.<br class=""> ><br class="">
><br class="">
> 2. Objective of policy change<br class="">
> -----------------------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are \
proposing to<br class=""> > modify the text describing the \
eligibility criteria for ASN<br class=""> > assignment by \
removing multi-homing requirement for the organization.<br class=""> ><br \
class=""> ><br class="">
> 3. Situation in other regions<br class="">
> -----------------------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> ARIN:<br class="">
> It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order \
get ASN<br class=""> ><br class="">
> RIPE:<br class="">
> Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in \
discussion<br class=""> > and the current phase ends 12 \
February 2015<br class=""> > Policy - <a \
href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03" target="_blank" \
class="">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03</a><br class=""> \
><br class=""> > LACNIC:<br class="">
> only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing<br class="">
><br class="">
> AFRINIC:<br class="">
> It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN.<br \
class=""> ><br class="">
><br class="">
> 4. Proposed policy solution<br class="">
> ---------------------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:<br \
class=""> > - Is planning to use it within next 6 months<br \
class=""> ><br class="">
><br class="">
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages<br class="">
> -----------------------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> Advantages:<br class="">
><br class="">
> Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the \
policy will<br class=""> > make sure that organizations are not \
tempted to provide wrong<br class=""> > information in order to \
fulfil the criteria of eligibility.<br class=""> ><br class="">
> Disadvantages:<br class="">
><br class="">
> No disadvantage.<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> 6. Impact on resource holders<br class="">
> -----------------------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> No impact on existing resource holders.<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> 7. References<br class="">
> -------------<br class="">
><br class="">
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *<br class="">
> _______________________________________________<br class="">
> sig-policy mailing list<br class="">
> <a href="mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" \
class="">sig-policy@lists.apnic.net</a><br class=""> > <a \
href="http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy" target="_blank" \
class="">http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy</a><br class=""> \
_______________________________________________<br class=""> rpd mailing list<br \
class=""> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank" \
class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br class=""> \
</blockquote></div> _______________________________________________<br class="">rpd \
mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" \
class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br \
class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd<br \
class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic