Replies
5 Feb
8:07 p.m.
hahahahahahahahahah
...Skeeve
"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."
This made my morning.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster..."We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.OwenSo it doesn't look like there is a problem here.The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
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-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
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
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
5 Feb
8:50 p.m.
Rather than being a laughing matter this proposal seeks to hand out ASNs with no more justification than "I want one".
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
Can the authors explain why they feel radical change to existing policy is required?
On Friday, 6 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:
On Friday, 6 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:
hahahahahahahahahah"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."This made my morning.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster..."We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.OwenSo it doesn't look like there is a problem here.The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
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-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
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
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
7 Feb
11:21 p.m.
I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement.
Owen
hahahahahahahahahah"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."This made my morning.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster..."We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.OwenSo it doesn't look like there is a problem here.The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
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-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
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
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
8 Feb
12:49 a.m.
There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement.Owenhahahahahahahahahah"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."This made my morning.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster..."We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.OwenSo it doesn't look like there is a problem here.The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
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-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
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
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
8 Feb
1:25 a.m.
Dean,
Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement.Owenhahahahahahahahahah"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."This made my morning.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster..."We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.OwenSo it doesn't look like there is a problem here.The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
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-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
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
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
23 Feb
6:38 p.m.
Dear Colleagues,
Regarding prop-114, discussion points are;
1. Whether completely taking away multi-home requirement or relaxing it by adding "or unique routing policy"
as Owen proposed and ARIN doing.
2. Whether we will relax it for only 4-byte AS or 2-byte also.
(Please note that we are running out 2-byte AS and it might speed it up)
It is very appreciated if you will express your views for these points,
and also show another points if you have.
Regards,
Masato
2015-02-07 19:25 GMT-06:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com>:
Dean,Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement.Owenhahahahahahahahahah"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."This made my morning.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster..."We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.OwenSo it doesn't look like there is a problem here.The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
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-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
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
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
23 Feb
9:34 p.m.
Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
Secondly, In considering this policy proposal in conjunction with prop-113, I am increasingly doubtful that there is anything for me to support here.
I suspect what is happening here is that these proposals (113 and 114) are conjoined and rather than significantly lowering the bar with regard to allocation of IPv4 resources, they seek removal of the bar altogether.
There are players within the community who will significantly benefit from a policy framework with a reduced multi-homing and demonstrated needs requirement, but those entities are not necessarily the end LIRs.
What these two proposals seek to do is remove all barriers to obtaining IPv4 addresses and ASNs.
One of the major problems here is that the authors seek to do this one 'cut' at a time. Almost in an attempt to avoid waking the tiger which is ARIN's requirement for needs based allocation, or having the APNIC community discussion around 'needs based' allocation for IPv4 resources.
I would like to see us stop the subterfuge here.
I would like to see both of these policies withdrawn and prop-116 "Removal of all barriers to allocation of IPv4 and ASN resources" put forward for debate. It is only in that way that the true ramifications/impacts of these smaller policies can be realised and discussed by the community.
Forcing us to debate this clause by clause is a waste of community time and effort.
I strongly oppose this policy as it is currently written.
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,Regarding prop-114, discussion points are;1. Whether completely taking away multi-home requirement or relaxing it by adding "or unique routing policy"as Owen proposed and ARIN doing.2. Whether we will relax it for only 4-byte AS or 2-byte also.(Please note that we are running out 2-byte AS and it might speed it up)It is very appreciated if you will express your views for these points,and also show another points if you have.Regards,Masato2015-02-07 19:25 GMT-06:00 Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com>:Dean,Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it.
On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement.Owenhahahahahahahahahah"...to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present."This made my morning.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster..."We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us" doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware.Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying "Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand" and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present.OwenSo it doesn't look like there is a problem here.The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them.Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake.What's the problem statement here?
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote:Hello Dean,
We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording.
However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy.
Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but
we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is
required.
George K
On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential
member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise
have been able to?
In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters
ever been a barrier to entry?
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com
<mailto:myamanis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
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-114
Regards,
Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------
prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com');>
Skeeve Stevens
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
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
-------------
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
8:09 a.m.
Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this policy change.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com> wrote:
Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
> Great - Thanks for that.
>
> As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
> I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.
If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is
no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private
matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1
billion of those.
If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then
they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared.
philip
--
>
> I do not support the proposal
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>> =========
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
>>
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>>
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot.
>>>
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>>
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what
>>>> the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
>>>> point us to it then it might help.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective.
>>>>
>>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are.
>>>> I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or more other
>>>> ASNs"
>>>> In which case I think we can go back to agreeing.
>>>
>>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity.
>>>>
>>>> I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only
>>>> valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I
>>>> don't believe that we have had those conversations.
>>>
>>> I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome.
>>>
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>>> We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming,
>>>> but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic
>>>> of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the
>>>> other thread confirms beyond doubt.)
>>>
>>> Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the proposal to still require justified need rather than mere announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred.
>>>
>>> Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are undesirable.
>>>
>>>> There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times you
>>>> can't see the unintended consequences until you are already down the
>>>> track of smaller simpler policy changes.
>>>
>>> I really don’t think that is a risk in this case.
>>>
>>>> As we are in Japan I offer a haiku:
>>>>
>>>> A frog in water
>>>> doesn’t feel it boil in time.
>>>> Do not be that frog.
>>>>
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
>>>
>>> I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US looking on from afar.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
8:20 a.m.
Nope - Your other email didn't provide any reasons which weren't covered by Philips answer.
If you have a peering session to two or more ASNs you are multihomed and you qualify.
If you only peer with one ASN then you can do this with a private ASN.
If you want to make a change and move from a single peer to more than one then you get quickly get an ASN.
You can even get them in advance of a planned network change as seen in the current policy snippet below
"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)."
No need to change policy.
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:
Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this policy change.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com> wrote:Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
> Great - Thanks for that.
>
> As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
> I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.
If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is
no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private
matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1
billion of those.
If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then
they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared.
philip
--
>
> I do not support the proposal
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>> =========
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
>>
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>>
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot.
>>>
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>>
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what
>>>> the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
>>>> point us to it then it might help.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective.
>>>>
>>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are.
>>>> I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or more other
>>>> ASNs"
>>>> In which case I think we can go back to agreeing.
>>>
>>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity.
>>>>
>>>> I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only
>>>> valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I
>>>> don't believe that we have had those conversations.
>>>
>>> I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome.
>>>
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>>> We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming,
>>>> but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic
>>>> of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the
>>>> other thread confirms beyond doubt.)
>>>
>>> Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the proposal to still require justified need rather than mere announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred.
>>>
>>> Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are undesirable.
>>>
>>>> There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times you
>>>> can't see the unintended consequences until you are already down the
>>>> track of smaller simpler policy changes.
>>>
>>> I really don’t think that is a risk in this case.
>>>
>>>> As we are in Japan I offer a haiku:
>>>>
>>>> A frog in water
>>>> doesn’t feel it boil in time.
>>>> Do not be that frog.
>>>>
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
>>>
>>> I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US looking on from afar.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
8:32 a.m.
Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you.
You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change in network configuration.
That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how things should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do it the way they want to.
If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Nope - Your other email didn't provide any reasons which weren't covered by Philips answer.If you have a peering session to two or more ASNs you are multihomed and you qualify.If you only peer with one ASN then you can do this with a private ASN.If you want to make a change and move from a single peer to more than one then you get quickly get an ASN.You can even get them in advance of a planned network change as seen in the current policy snippet below"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)."No need to change policy.--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this policy change.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com> wrote:Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
> Great - Thanks for that.
>
> As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see.
> I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114.
Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.
If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is
no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private
matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1
billion of those.
If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then
they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared.
philip
--
>
> I do not support the proposal
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Guangliang
>> =========
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
>>
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>>
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot.
>>>
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>>
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what
>>>> the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
>>>> point us to it then it might help.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective.
>>>>
>>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are.
>>>> I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or more other
>>>> ASNs"
>>>> In which case I think we can go back to agreeing.
>>>
>>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity.
>>>>
>>>> I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only
>>>> valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I
>>>> don't believe that we have had those conversations.
>>>
>>> I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome.
>>>
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>>> We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming,
>>>> but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic
>>>> of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the
>>>> other thread confirms beyond doubt.)
>>>
>>> Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the proposal to still require justified need rather than mere announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred.
>>>
>>> Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are undesirable.
>>>
>>>> There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times you
>>>> can't see the unintended consequences until you are already down the
>>>> track of smaller simpler policy changes.
>>>
>>> I really don’t think that is a risk in this case.
>>>
>>>> As we are in Japan I offer a haiku:
>>>>
>>>> A frog in water
>>>> doesn’t feel it boil in time.
>>>> Do not be that frog.
>>>>
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
>>>
>>> I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US looking on from afar.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
11:25 p.m.
Owen,
The intent is not to give people as many AS's as they want, and indeed few businesses would ever need more than 1 AS.
What about if businesses did not have the multi-homing requirement for the first ASN they were issued?
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you.
>
> You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change in network configuration.
>
> That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how things should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do it the way they want to.
>
> If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to.
Even if I agreed with what you have said above, and I do not, this last statement bears no resemblence to the policy you have proposed.
If you want to propose a policy that matches your last sentence, I would not oppose that, so long as any additional ASNs had to be issued under the current multihome requirement.
However, your proposal doesn’t say someone who has PI space is entitled to 1 ASN. It says anyone who wants one is entitled to as many ASNs as they want.
That’s simply a bad idea.
Owen
25 Feb
6:46 a.m.
To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it is to do with flexibility.
I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenience of being able to add these things easily.
Lets say I was a company with a /23 and upstream into Telstra Only. If I had my own ASN and was announcing to Telstra, then at any time I could add another ISP, IXP, direct peering without having to go apply for an ASN, reconfigure my network to bring the announcement in-house, etc.
I also might want to maintain a single provider, but be able to migrate easily to another provider without having to rely on the providers to do the "right thing" while changing announcements between them.
I think this policy has VERY valid applications for many smaller entities to be able to have an ASN without having to be multi-homed either initially, or maintain that multi-homing.
As Randy used to say - Why do you have the right to tell me how to manage my network? If I want to be multi-homed, or change my mind and not be, it is none of your damn business.
I think this policy change reflects the changing way for businesses to get online since APNIC has run out of IP's, and are often charging significant amounts of money - so people are going to APNIC directly - which they are entitled to do. And being flexible and being able to change their circumstances is a more common thing nowadays.
If you want, suggest charging for ASN's... but don't tell networks how they should be connected at any time.
Btw... I am happy for this to apply ONLY to ASN4 and not ASN2.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
to just give up issuing visas.
It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
resources. Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
the existing policies.
Regards,
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
<aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Guangliang for the update,
>
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
>> multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
>> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
>> Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is
>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>
>
> So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in
> place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
> numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3
> months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with
> the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification
> to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS
> to be peer with in future?
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
6:50 a.m.
Agreed... Aftabs use case is one of many... the others I just posted about.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com> wrote:
All,
I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
(which I do agree)
Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
something on the lines of
³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
for as ASN²?
This would cover the use case without opening the floodgates.
Thoughts?
Raf
On 25/2/15 2:33 pm, "Dean Pemberton" <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
>sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
>If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
>conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
>to just give up issuing visas.
>
>It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate
>job of checking policy compliance of member applications for
>resources. Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with
>them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in
>the existing policies.
>
>
>Regards,
>Dean
>--
>Dean Pemberton
>
>Technical Policy Advisor
>InternetNZ
>+64 21 920 363 (mob)
>dean@internetnz.net.nz
>
>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
><aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Guangliang for the update,
>>
>>>
>>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
>>> multihomed is as below.
>>>
>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>>
>>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>>
>>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS.
>>>An
>>> AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet
>>> Exchange Point.
>>>
>>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN
>>> implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It
>>>is
>>> also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>>
>>
>> So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public
>>IX in
>> place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS
>> numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after
>>3
>> months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering
>>with
>> the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email
>>notification
>> to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned
>>your AS
>> to be peer with in future?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui.
>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
>_______________________________________________
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
11:11 p.m.
Owen,
But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)?
I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their upstream connectivity at any particular time.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)
What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need it?
> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they need one.
> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
>
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?
I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why they need one
ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
Owen
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
11:36 p.m.
Actually the RFC makes this clear.
All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and should almost never happen". If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a departure from documented current best practice.
5.1 Sample Cases
* Single-homed site, single prefix
A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an
AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-
ing policy as the other customers of the site's service
provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-
ing information.
This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-
lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a
representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of
administrative use.
In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find
it necessary to have a policy different from that of its
provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-
rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-
tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites
require different routing policies than their parents. Because
the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.
* Single-homed site, multiple prefixes
Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be
placed in an AS of the site's provider.
* Multi-homed site
Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes
which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than
one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network
multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.
An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a
single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.
This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-
sentation of policy and preference among the different service
providers.
This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should
create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure
that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing
protocols, such as BGP4.
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:
Owen,But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)?I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their upstream connectivity at any particular time.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)
What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need it?
> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they need one.
> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
>
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?
I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why they need one
ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
Owen
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
11:50 p.m.
Dean,
...Skeeve
You are quoting an RFC from 1996 (19 years ago)? What next, the Old Testament? Thou shalt be multi-homed?
I don't think this RFC ever envisioned the IP runout and that networks hosted by businesses themselves (of any size) would need multi-homing and in the reading of this, you could make an argument that no-one needs an ASN and that all their upstreams could host their portable space for them.
Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has no intention of ever multi-homing.
I am wanting to policy to reflect that if a network operator wants to design their network for multi-homing, that they should be able to, with no requirement to immediately multi-home. At no point did I say 'never' multi-home, or no intention of multi-homing.... the intention should be there.
I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Actually the RFC makes this clear.There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as "BEST CURRENT PRACTICE". Please someone let me know if I've missed an obsolescence here.All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and should almost never happen". If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a departure from documented current best practice.5.1 Sample Cases* Single-homed site, single prefixA separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in anAS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-ing policy as the other customers of the site's serviceprovider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-ing information.This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as arepresentation of routing policy as opposed to some form ofadministrative use.In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may findit necessary to have a policy different from that of itsprovider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sitesrequire different routing policies than their parents. Becausethe AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.* Single-homed site, multiple prefixesAgain, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should beplaced in an AS of the site's provider.* Multi-homed siteHere multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixeswhich connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more thanone AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a networkmulti-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of asingle AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-sentation of policy and preference among the different serviceproviders.This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator shouldcreate its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensurethat it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routingprotocols, such as BGP4.--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:Owen,But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)?I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their upstream connectivity at any particular time.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)
What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need it?
> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they need one.
> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
>
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?
I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why they need one
ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
Owen
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
26 Feb
12:03 a.m.
Dean,
What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this.
"You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes". I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this - WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed.
The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network.
You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in that way.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here.It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy. This fact has been supported by the current hostmasters. Operators currently have the freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes.There is no change in policy required.I strongly oppose this policy as written.
26 Feb
12:03 a.m.
On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:50 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:Dean,You are quoting an RFC from 1996 (19 years ago)? What next, the Old Testament? Thou shalt be multi-homed?I don't think this RFC ever envisioned the IP runout and that networks hosted by businesses themselves (of any size) would need multi-homing and in the reading of this, you could make an argument that no-one needs an ASN and that all their upstreams could host their portable space for them.
Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has no intention of ever multi-homing.
I am wanting to policy to reflect that if a network operator wants to design their network for multi-homing, that they should be able to, with no requirement to immediately multi-home. At no point did I say 'never' multi-home, or no intention of multi-homing.... the intention should be there.
I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way.
Owen
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:Actually the RFC makes this clear.There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as "BEST CURRENT PRACTICE". Please someone let me know if I've missed an obsolescence here.All of the situations you are talking about are described as "rare and should almost never happen". If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a departure from documented current best practice.5.1 Sample Cases* Single-homed site, single prefixA separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in anAS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-ing policy as the other customers of the site's serviceprovider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-ing information.This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as arepresentation of routing policy as opposed to some form ofadministrative use.In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may findit necessary to have a policy different from that of itsprovider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sitesrequire different routing policies than their parents. Becausethe AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.* Single-homed site, multiple prefixesAgain, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should beplaced in an AS of the site's provider.* Multi-homed siteHere multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixeswhich connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more thanone AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a networkmulti-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of asingle AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-sentation of policy and preference among the different serviceproviders.This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator shouldcreate its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensurethat it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routingprotocols, such as BGP4.--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:Owen,But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)?I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their upstream connectivity at any particular time.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
> trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
> the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
> they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
> (which I do agree)
What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need it?
> Currently they all have to "commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I
> guess some religion takes that more seriously than others.
They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they need one.
> Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say
> something on the lines of
>
> ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible
> for as ASN²?
I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why they need one
ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it?
Owen
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
8:13 a.m.
I would think it would... why does it matter how you get to another peer?
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab@lahai.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Guangliang,
can you clarify these questions for me.
If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
would that be considered multihoming ?
- -gaurab
On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
> Hi Dean and All,
>
> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
> of multihomed is as below.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>
> 3.4 Multihomed
>
> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
> AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
> public Internet Exchange Point.
>
> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
> ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
> details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
> IXP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guangliang =========
>
> -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean
> Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
> DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
> [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
> criteria
>
> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
> the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>
>
> -- Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
> potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
>>> <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed
>>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
>>>>> single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way
>>>>> to enforce this.
>>>>
>>>> This is not true.
>>>>
>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
>>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
>>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
>>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
>>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
>>> =) ).
>>>
>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
>>> constitute multihoming.
>>
>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
>> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>
>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC
>> could render this moot.
>>
>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings
>> with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not
>> constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a
>> unique routing policy”.
>>
>>
>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed
>>> and covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>
>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection?
>> I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not
>> multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to
>>> what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one
>>> of them can point us to it then it might help.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other
>>>> proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate
>>>> reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations
>>>> that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC
>>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements
>>> are. I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or
>>> more other ASNs" In which case I think we can go back to
>>> agreeing.
>>
>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or
>> more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy
>>>> proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are
>>>> more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large
>>>> complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of
>>>> failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of
>>>> complexity.
>>>
>>> I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is
>>> only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic
>>> direction. I don't believe that we have had those
>>> conversations.
>>
>> I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting
>> to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a
>> useful outcome.
>>
>> YMMV.
>>
>>> We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about
>>> multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the
>>> much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as
>>> Aftab's clarification in the other thread confirms beyond
>>> doubt.)
>>
>> Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to
>> outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a
>> subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the
>> proposal to still require justified need rather than mere
>> announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent
>> clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred.
>>
>> Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as
>> written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change
>> which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the
>> radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are
>> undesirable.
>>
>>> There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times
>>> you can't see the unintended consequences until you are already
>>> down the track of smaller simpler policy changes.
>>
>> I really don’t think that is a risk in this case.
>>
>>> As we are in Japan I offer a haiku:
>>>
>>> A frog in water doesn’t feel it boil in time. Do not be that
>>> frog.
>>>
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
>>
>> I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US
>> looking on from afar.
>>
>> Owen
>>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> * _______________________________________________ sig-policy
> mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy *
> sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing
> list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
- --
http://www.gaurab.org.np/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAlTtg1QACgkQSo7fU26F3X3nSACfZayuWmeykSI2WzjhOZ0AO9rY
I+kAoM863V5skin8wC/7sYaFfmhpwiTu
=YRGr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
9:56 a.m.
Guangliang,
What are the rules about someone with a ASN, later de-multi-homing?
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Gaurab,
If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy they can receive an ASN assignment.
Regards,
Guangliang
> On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya" <gaurab@lahai.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Guangliang,
>
> can you clarify these questions for me.
>
> If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
> circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
> would that be considered multihoming ?
>
>
> - -gaurab
>
>
>
>> On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
>> of multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
>> AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
>> public Internet Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
>> ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
>> details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
>> IXP.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Guangliang =========
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
>> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean
>> Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
>> DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
>> [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
>> criteria
>>
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
>> the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>
>>
>> -- Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
>> potential.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
>>>> <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed
>>>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
>>>>>> single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way
>>>>>> to enforce this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
>>>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
>>>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
>>>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
>>>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
>>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
>>>> =) ).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
>>>> constitute multihoming.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
>>> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>>
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC
>>> could render this moot.
>>>
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings
>>> with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not
>>> constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a
>>> unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed
>>>> and covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>>
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection?
>>> I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not
>>> multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to
>>>> what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one
>>>> of them can point us to it then it might help.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other
>>>>> proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate
>>>>> reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations
>>>>> that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements
>>>> are. I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or
>>>> more other ASNs" In which case I think we can go back to
>>>> agreeing.
>>>
>>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or
>>> more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy
>>>>> proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are
>>>>> more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large
>>>>> complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of
>>>>> failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of
>>>>> complexity.
>>>>
>>>> I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is
>>>> only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic
>>>> direction. I don't believe that we have had those
>>>> conversations.
>>>
>>> I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting
>>> to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a
>>> useful outcome.
>>>
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>>> We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about
>>>> multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the
>>>> much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as
>>>> Aftab's clarification in the other thread confirms beyond
>>>> doubt.)
>>>
>>> Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to
>>> outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a
>>> subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the
>>> proposal to still require justified need rather than mere
>>> announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent
>>> clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred.
>>>
>>> Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as
>>> written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change
>>> which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the
>>> radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are
>>> undesirable.
>>>
>>>> There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times
>>>> you can't see the unintended consequences until you are already
>>>> down the track of smaller simpler policy changes.
>>>
>>> I really don’t think that is a risk in this case.
>>>
>>>> As we are in Japan I offer a haiku:
>>>>
>>>> A frog in water doesn’t feel it boil in time. Do not be that
>>>> frog.
>>>>
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
>>>
>>> I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US
>>> looking on from afar.
>>>
>>> Owen
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> * _______________________________________________ sig-policy
>> mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy *
>> sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing
>> list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
> - --
>
> http://www.gaurab.org.np/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlTtg1QACgkQSo7fU26F3X3nSACfZayuWmeykSI2WzjhOZ0AO9rY
> I+kAoM863V5skin8wC/7sYaFfmhpwiTu
> =YRGr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
10:02 a.m.
Hi Skeeve,
I don't think we have a policy to reclaim those AS Numbers.
Regards,
Guangliang
Guangliang,
What are the rules about someone with a ASN, later de-multi-homing?
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Gaurab,
If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy they can receive an ASN assignment.
Regards,
Guangliang
> On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya" <gaurab@lahai.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Guangliang,
>
> can you clarify these questions for me.
>
> If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
> circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
> would that be considered multihoming ?
>
>
> - -gaurab
>
>
>
>> On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote:
>> Hi Dean and All,
>>
>> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition
>> of multihomed is as below.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>>
>> 3.4 Multihomed
>>
>> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other
>> AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a
>> public Internet Exchange Point.
>>
>> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate
>> ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact
>> details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an
>> IXP.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Guangliang =========
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
>> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean
>> Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen
>> DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy]
>> [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
>> criteria
>>
>> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from
>> the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>>
>>
>> -- Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
>> potential.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton
>>>> <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed
>>>>>> then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your
>>>>>> single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way
>>>>>> to enforce this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other
>>>>> peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are
>>>>> also not down-stream. These relationships may not be
>>>>> sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is
>>>>> multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed
>>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year
>>>> =) ).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES
>>>> constitute multihoming.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a
>>> manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>>
>>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC
>>> could render this moot.
>>>
>>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings
>>> with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not
>>> constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a
>>> unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed
>>>> and covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>>
>>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection?
>>> I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not
>>> multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to
>>>> what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one
>>>> of them can point us to it then it might help.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other
>>>>> proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate
>>>>> reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations
>>>>> that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements
>>>> are. I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or
>>>> more other ASNs" In which case I think we can go back to
>>>> agreeing.
>>>
>>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or
>>> more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy
>>>>> proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are
>>>>> more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large
>>>>> complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of
>>>>> failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of
>>>>> complexity.
>>>>
>>>> I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is
>>>> only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic
>>>> direction. I don't believe that we have had those
>>>> conversations.
>>>
>>> I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting
>>> to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a
>>> useful outcome.
>>>
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>>> We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about
>>>> multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the
>>>> much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as
>>>> Aftab's clarification in the other thread confirms beyond
>>>> doubt.)
>>>
>>> Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to
>>> outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a
>>> subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the
>>> proposal to still require justified need rather than mere
>>> announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent
>>> clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred.
>>>
>>> Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as
>>> written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change
>>> which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the
>>> radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are
>>> undesirable.
>>>
>>>> There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times
>>>> you can't see the unintended consequences until you are already
>>>> down the track of smaller simpler policy changes.
>>>
>>> I really don’t think that is a risk in this case.
>>>
>>>> As we are in Japan I offer a haiku:
>>>>
>>>> A frog in water doesn’t feel it boil in time. Do not be that
>>>> frog.
>>>>
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
>>>
>>> I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US
>>> looking on from afar.
>>>
>>> Owen
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> * _______________________________________________ sig-policy
>> mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy *
>> sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing
>> list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
> - --
>
> http://www.gaurab.org.np/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlTtg1QACgkQSo7fU26F3X3nSACfZayuWmeykSI2WzjhOZ0AO9rY
> I+kAoM863V5skin8wC/7sYaFfmhpwiTu
> =YRGr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
8:49 a.m.
Dean,
I'm not debating the time it takes to get an ASN allocated... I'm talking about everything else around it... and changing your setup when you shouldn't even have to... again, you're telling people how to run their networks.
I'm simply saying that leave the running of the networks to them... let them decide when, if they multi-home, if they choose to de-multi-home, etc.
We all know we can lie our way around this... but people shouldn't have to... and if that is the only reason, then it is still a valid one.
A rule that isn't enforced, or has any repercussions for going around, shouldn't even be there in the first place. If the only reason it remains is to annoy some small number of ethical people, it should be remediated.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Thanks for that Guangliang. Thats really helped to clarify the position here.
Another question.
Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN
(assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it
being allocated?
1 day?
1 week?
1 month?
I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than
it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session.
Thanks
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
> Hi Dean and All,
>
> According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
>
> 3.4 Multihomed
>
> A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point.
>
> In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guangliang
> =========
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
>
> Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
>
>
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> dean@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
>>>>
>>>> This is not true.
>>>>
>>>> You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ).
>>>
>>> I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming.
>>
>> I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR.
>>
>> Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot.
>>
>> However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”.
>>
>>
>>> If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to
>>> participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and
>>> covered under existing APNIC policy.
>>
>> What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”.
>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what
>>> the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
>>> point us to it then it might help.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective.
>>>
>>> I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are.
>>> I suspect that they amount to "BGP connections to two or more other
>>> ASNs"
>>> In which case I think we can go back to agreeing.
>>
>> As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity.
>>>
>>> I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only
>>> valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I
>>> don't believe that we have had those conversations.
>>
>> I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome.
>>
>> YMMV.
>>
>>> We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming,
>>> but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic
>>> of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the
>>> other thread confirms beyond doubt.)
>>
>> Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the proposal to still require justified need rather than mere announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred.
>>
>> Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are undesirable.
>>
>>> There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times you
>>> can't see the unintended consequences until you are already down the
>>> track of smaller simpler policy changes.
>>
>> I really don’t think that is a risk in this case.
>>
>>> As we are in Japan I offer a haiku:
>>>
>>> A frog in water
>>> doesn’t feel it boil in time.
>>> Do not be that frog.
>>>
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)
>>
>> I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US looking on from afar.
>>
>> Owen
>>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
11:17 p.m.
David,
I agree very much with the operational perspective (obviously), but since when in this day and age of infrastructure that size still matters?
Having to change your infrastructure (of any size), potentially with outages and so on, is not acceptable if you are able to design around it from day one.
I see it enough that a member should be able to proactively design their connectivity (should they want to - no one is being forced here) to have the potential for multi-homing.
The silly thing with the multi-homing barrier as Guangliang confirmed, you could multi-home for 1 day and meet the criteria and then disconnect and then you are still allowed to continue using it. So why have the restriction there in the first place?
Surely if someone thinks having an ASN is important in their design, they should be allowed to have one.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:10 AM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
...
There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN
they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then
that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.
Dean
>From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.
However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a new unique registry assigned ASN. Which you are saying I can't have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX. If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship. But if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated.
I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations. I think maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or connected to an IX.
A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw the line.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
11:36 p.m.
Owen,
Can't you see the fault in your argument? You are suggesting that a member needlessly creates a tunnel to HE just to satisfy the needs of the current policy... that seems wasteful and a stupid hoop which just gets around the policy.
I might as well just offer free peering with a couple of routes to my ASN for anyone who wants to satisfy the policy.
The point here is fixing a requirement that is so easily avoided, it needed be there in the first place.
All you are doing is causing people to create route-object garbage so that they are able to run their networks the way they want to.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>> There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN
>> they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then
>> that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.
>>
>> Dean
>
> From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.
>
> However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a new unique registry assigned ASN. Which you are saying I can't have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX. If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship. But if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated.
That’s actually not the case.
The case is until you choose to multihome or connect to an IX. You can choose to do that with a pretty small network. My home is multihomed, for example.
Any network with an IPv4 upstream can get an IPv6 tunnel from HE, turn on BGP, and poof, they are sufficiently multihomed for the APNIC definition. HE has several tunnel servers in the APNIC region to support this.
Changing ASNs on peering sessions actually isn’t very hard. There’s a brief period where you have inconsistent origin, but otherwise, it’s mostly one line of config change on each of your border routers. Even if you’ve got a hundred peering sessions, it’s something that can be done in a day or two with a cooperative provider. It might take a few weeks with some of the less responsive providers.
However, while I’m not trying to tell anyone how to run their network, I think we can agree that it is pretty foolhearty to get much beyond 2 or 3 peering sessions without mixing in some provider diversity. Further, if you want to plan ahead and deploy an ASN early, turning up an HE tunnel to do that is pretty easy. Unless HE is your only upstream for IPv4, you’re all set at that point.
> I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations. I think maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or connected to an IX.
I don’t think size is relevant. As I said, I wouldn’t oppose a policy modification that in addition to the current mechanisms, allowed for anyone with a PI allocation or assignment to obtain a single ASN without question.
> A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw the line.
I’m having trouble envisioning who would build a network with 100 border routers (only the border routers really count in this case) without connecting to more than one upstream. This smells like looking for a corner case to justify a solution looking for a problem statement.
Owen
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
25 Feb
11:57 p.m.
On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:36 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:Owen,Can't you see the fault in your argument? You are suggesting that a member needlessly creates a tunnel to HE just to satisfy the needs of the current policy... that seems wasteful and a stupid hoop which just gets around the policy.
I might as well just offer free peering with a couple of routes to my ASN for anyone who wants to satisfy the policy.
The point here is fixing a requirement that is so easily avoided, it needed be there in the first place.
All you are doing is causing people to create route-object garbage so that they are able to run their networks the way they want to.
Owen
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>> There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN
>> they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then
>> that is against current policy and I'm ok with that.
>>
>> Dean
>
> From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry.
>
> However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a new unique registry assigned ASN. Which you are saying I can't have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX. If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship. But if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated.
That’s actually not the case.
The case is until you choose to multihome or connect to an IX. You can choose to do that with a pretty small network. My home is multihomed, for example.
Any network with an IPv4 upstream can get an IPv6 tunnel from HE, turn on BGP, and poof, they are sufficiently multihomed for the APNIC definition. HE has several tunnel servers in the APNIC region to support this.
Changing ASNs on peering sessions actually isn’t very hard. There’s a brief period where you have inconsistent origin, but otherwise, it’s mostly one line of config change on each of your border routers. Even if you’ve got a hundred peering sessions, it’s something that can be done in a day or two with a cooperative provider. It might take a few weeks with some of the less responsive providers.
However, while I’m not trying to tell anyone how to run their network, I think we can agree that it is pretty foolhearty to get much beyond 2 or 3 peering sessions without mixing in some provider diversity. Further, if you want to plan ahead and deploy an ASN early, turning up an HE tunnel to do that is pretty easy. Unless HE is your only upstream for IPv4, you’re all set at that point.
> I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations. I think maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or connected to an IX.
I don’t think size is relevant. As I said, I wouldn’t oppose a policy modification that in addition to the current mechanisms, allowed for anyone with a PI allocation or assignment to obtain a single ASN without question.
> A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw the line.
I’m having trouble envisioning who would build a network with 100 border routers (only the border routers really count in this case) without connecting to more than one upstream. This smells like looking for a corner case to justify a solution looking for a problem statement.
Owen
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
4 Feb
2:26 a.m.
I did actually think that... but Aftab rightly pointed out that there are people who still can use them, due to their own equipment or due to their upstreams.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab@lahai.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2/3/15 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> so the little hack above should be
>
>> - Is planning to use it within next 6 months
> ^ for multi-homing
make it applicable only for 32 bits ASNs.
(duck)
- -gaurab
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAlTRgkAACgkQSo7fU26F3X3BnACaA/cWeaPosz/0m4Oh9rCkS8Qc
PHkAn1QaM551nYWJojMBVjNpeR/LyRET
=Ad7X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
4 Mar
5:15 a.m.
Yes, this is the same in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, etc.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab@lahai.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 3/3/15 6:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> * Case of Pakistan It was helpful to hear about the case of
> Pakistan from Aftab, if I understood it correctly, wishes to be
> able to switch upstreams easily to ensure adequate service will be
> provided. It was felt that those needs should be tolerated and find
> ways to address it, questions were raised whether we should change
> the general criteria to address an indivisual case like this.
I don't think this is specific to Pakistan. It's applicable across the
board in the region. Carriers like to keep their customers captive
everywhere, just the level of professionalism varies.
- -gaurab
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAlT2lBgACgkQSo7fU26F3X2WXwCdF/dMBs+qYwEKVTeuUckJWF/5
TXIAn3rhAF1IKhNbHv++a+IK/RMr8nLP
=YrfM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 3193 days inactive
- 3193 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 20 participants
- 78 comments