Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Aftab A. Siddiqui
It did say "immediate future".
I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says
that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
closer to peering.
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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
<aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Guangliang,
>
>>
>> The option "b" is acceptable.
>>
>> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>> immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>> at the time of submitting a request
>
>
> But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom
> they may or may not multhome in future. right?
>
> 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
>
Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time.
- Large organizations like banks and retail chains are switching to TCP/IP for their internal communication. Large numbers of local workstations like cash registers, money machines, and equipment at clerical positions rarely need to have such connectivity.
Thing is though that we haven't tossed out the rest of RFC1918 just because some of it didn't age well.
-- 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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times here as the Best Current Practice even valid today..
an excerpt
"BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or Routing Domain Identifier."
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
It did say "immediate future". I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome", then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are closer to peering.
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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Guangliang,
The option "b" is acceptable.
b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request
But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they may or may not multhome in future. right?
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policysig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On Friday, February 27, 2015, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time.
- Large organizations like banks and retail chains are
switching to TCP/IP for their internal communication. Large
numbers of local workstations like cash registers, money
machines, and equipment at clerical positions rarely need
to have such connectivity.
Thing is though that we haven't tossed out the rest of RFC1918 just
because some of it didn't age well.
--
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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
<aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
> On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times here
> as the Best Current Practice even valid today..
>
> an excerpt
>
> "BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS
> routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol,
> which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see
> [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or
> Routing Domain Identifier."
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz>
> wrote:
>>
>> It did say "immediate future".
>> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that
>> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would
>> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer.
>>
>> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome",
>> then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says
>> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are
>> closer to peering.
>>
>> 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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
>> <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Guangliang,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The option "b" is acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
>> >> immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
>> >> at the time of submitting a request
>> >
>> >
>> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with
>> > whom
>> > they may or may not multhome in future. right?
>> >
>> > 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
--
...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus)
Activity Summary
- 3201 days inactive
- 3201 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 3 participants
- 2 comments