Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
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
Hi Aftab,
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?
Yes, they need to provide two ASNs which they planned to peer at the time of the application. They might peer to different ASNs after they received their own AS number.
Thanks, Guangliang =========
On 2015/02/27 14:00, Aftab Siddiqui 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?
I don't know whether it's adequate to do the same case in the APNIC region but sharing our case as a reference -
JPNIC requests for contact information for those ASNs they plan to be connected.
We sometimes we contact the upstreams and confirm the plan and this seems to be working OK.
Regards, Izumi
On 27/Feb/15 07:14, Izumi Okutani wrote:
I don't know whether it's adequate to do the same case in the APNIC region but sharing our case as a reference -
JPNIC requests for contact information for those ASNs they plan to be connected.
We sometimes we contact the upstreams and confirm the plan and this seems to be working OK.
AFRINIC do the same thing.
They reach out to the ISP that the applicant has listed in their application form to confirm whether, indeed, there are real plans for the applicant to connect to to said ISP.
I'm not sure if they do the same for exchange points, as I'm not in that space.
Mark.
Hi,
Just to mention that Izumi mentioned what is also largely requested and done at the AfriNIC region as well. I don't think there is any policy implication for member that peers with a different ASN other than the ones provided during application.
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 Feb 2015 06:14, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
On 2015/02/27 14:00, Aftab Siddiqui 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?
I don't know whether it's adequate to do the same case in the APNIC region but sharing our case as a reference -
JPNIC requests for contact information for those ASNs they plan to be connected.
We sometimes we contact the upstreams and confirm the plan and this seems to be working OK.
Regards, Izumi
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
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
This is where the big different in philosophy is.
I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be multi-homed - 'at some point'
Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you are ready.
Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, 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
I'm sure Skeeve also thinks that organisations should be able to get all the IP addresses they might ever need all on day one. I'm sure he even knows a company who could arrange that for them.
Lets see where the community thinks this should go. It still sounds like unlimited ASNs for anyone who thinks they might like to have them. Great business for anyone clipping the ticket on the transaction.
-- 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 7:10 PM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:
This is where the big different in philosophy is.
I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be multi-homed - 'at some point'
Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you are ready.
Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, 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
On Feb 27, 2015, at 00:22, Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
I'm sure Skeeve also thinks that organisations should be able to get all the IP addresses they might ever need all on day one. I'm sure he even knows a company who could arrange that for them.
Well our IPv4 policies are explicitly designed to not provide all the IPv4 addresses an organization needs. Where as with IPv6 that is at least possible, maybe not forever, but there is a goal of 5 to 10 years or more for an initial allocation.
Lets see where the community thinks this should go. It still sounds like unlimited ASNs for anyone who thinks they might like to have them. Great business for anyone clipping the ticket on the transaction.
Now that we that have 4 billion ASNs, maybe we should reexamine our policy goals for ASNs, at least compared to when we only had 65 thousand ASNs.
If we are willing to give an organization a routing slot with IPv4 or IPv6 PA or PI address block, why wouldn't we be willing to give them a ASN too? I would want them to provide additional justification why they need a second ASN, but the mere fact we gave then a PA or PI address block is probably sufficient justification for their first ASN.
The reverse is also probably also true, if we are NOT willing to give them a routing slot, we probably should NOT be willing to give them an ASN either, at least without additional justification like multi-homing.
-- 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 2:10 PM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:
Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
Skeeve, I think you are stressing this point too far.
Dean has absolutely no right to tell you how you build your network. I wouldn't dream of having an opinon, either. And I strongly oppose APNIC getting involved in your network design at all.
But an ASN is not used for "your" network. It is used to connect to others. If it was only your network you were concerned about, you can use the ASN number I was allocated. Or make up your own ASN.
If you do decide to connect to "the Internet", you have to listen to what other players say. I do not have a policy on how my customers at my DC build their networks, but if they want to transit me, they MUST apply BCP38, or else. Some lie, forget to maintain it, turn it off later, etc.
I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are "not multihomed" as they use the same provider. I am not sure if the current proposal allows for assignment of a public ASN for the above situation? If not, then this should be brought into scope because controlling traffic and AS-loops using private ASNs becomes challenging for organisations that have single-homed-but-multiple-links-to-same-provider-scenarios
Regards, Usman
On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:10 pm, Skeeve Stevens skeeve@v4now.com wrote:
This is where the big different in philosophy is.
I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be multi-homed - 'at some point'
Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you are ready.
Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
...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 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, 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
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
How so?
If not, then this should be brought into scope because controlling traffic
and AS-loops using private ASNs becomes challenging for organisations that have single-homed-but-multiple-links-to-same-provider-scenarios
Regards, Usman
On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:10 pm, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','skeeve@v4now.com');> wrote:
This is where the big different in philosophy is.
I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be multi-homed - 'at some point'
Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you are ready.
Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service skeeve@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','skeeve@v4now.com'); ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sig-policy@lists.apnic.net');
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sig-policy@lists.apnic.net'); http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On 27/Feb/15 10:58, Usman Latif wrote:
I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are "not multihomed" as they use the same provider.
BGP does not concern itself with how many links it is running over.
Networks on the Internet have no idea how many links exist between you and your service provider(s). All they see is the NLRI your network purports to originate.
So really, being multi-homed has little bearing on how many links you have to one or more providers, but rather with how many different providers you share your routing policy with.
In BGP's mind (and in the classic definition of multi-homing as our community understands it today), you could have 100x links to the same ISP, but to the world, you still appear to be behind a single ISP, not behind 100x links.
Mark.
On 2015/02/27 18:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 27/Feb/15 10:58, Usman Latif wrote:
I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are "not multihomed" as they use the same provider.
BGP does not concern itself with how many links it is running over.
Networks on the Internet have no idea how many links exist between you and your service provider(s). All they see is the NLRI your network purports to originate.
So really, being multi-homed has little bearing on how many links you have to one or more providers, but rather with how many different providers you share your routing policy with.
In BGP's mind (and in the classic definition of multi-homing as our community understands it today), you could have 100x links to the same ISP, but to the world, you still appear to be behind a single ISP, not behind 100x links.
Indeed.
If we look at the definition of multihoming on APNIC Guangliang have shared on this mailing list, it doesn't specify how many links and it defines criteria based on ASNs.
---- 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. ----
Izumi
On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote:
I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
OK, that's an interesting approach.
What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.
Izumi
On 27/Feb/15 11:43, Izumi Okutani wrote:
OK, that's an interesting approach.
What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.
My experience with downstreams who have needed address space without the need for an ASN is so they can have independence from their provider's address space, but do not necessarily have the skill-set or budget to run an autonomous system.
So I do not think that it is necessarily wise to tie IP address resources to ASN resources in this way, by default. It is a valid operational approach for networks that require the address space - but not the autonomous system routing - to have their upstreams run their address space behind the upstreams ASN. As an operator running network across Africa, Europe and south Asia, we see and handle these use-cases all the time. In my experience, most customers in this scenario are more concerned with address space than routing.
Mark.
On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote:
I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
OK, that's an interesting approach.
What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.
I can see a few reasons.
1. The difficulty of renumbering from a private ASN is proportional to the number of links, not the number of ASNs. Ergo, someone who is single homed, but plans to become multihomed at some unspecified date in the future may, indeed, have good reason for wanting to do so with a public ASN.
2. I see very little harm in adopting such a policy, so long as it is limited to one ASN per organization.
3. If you have multiple links to a provider with diverse topology, it is desirable to be able to use a routing protocol in order to prevent black-holing traffic across down links, etc. The only routing protocol any sane ISP would run with an unrelated third party is BGP. BGP requires an ASN. See above for why a public ASN may be more desirable under this circumstance than a private one.
As to the references to RFC-1930, I think they are anachronistic at this point.
RFC-1930 was written before 32-bit ASNs were available and with a strong eye to the coming shortage of 16-bit ASNs. While I agree that even the 32-bit pool of ASNs is finite, I don’t think we’re going to cause a shortage of them by allowing single-homed organizations with PI space who plan to multihome at an unspecified future time to receive one.
As such, I believe such a policy would do no harm and provide benefit to some members of the community. If it were proposed, I would support it.
Owen
So a "maybe someday" ASN?
So anyone who has PI space and doesn't already have an ASN gets allocated one regardless of need. Any new member who gets PI space gets an ASN allocated as a matter of course.
Any additional ASN requested by a member must conform to existing policy.
Is this where we're at? Change the proposal and see where we get to.
Why not make it your APNIC membership number and be done with it :). That lowers the barrier even further and means that people wouldn't need assistance applying for them.
On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Owen DeLong owen@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp
javascript:;> wrote:
On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote:
I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from
RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed.
OK, that's an interesting approach.
What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN.
I can see a few reasons.
The difficulty of renumbering from a private ASN is proportionalto the number of links, not the number of ASNs. Ergo, someone who is single homed, but plans to become multihomed at some unspecified date in the future may, indeed, have good reason for wanting to do so with a public ASN.
I see very little harm in adopting such a policy, so long as it islimited to one ASN per organization.
If you have multiple links to a provider with diverse topology, itis desirable to be able to use a routing protocol in order to prevent black-holing traffic across down links, etc. The only routing protocol any sane ISP would run with an unrelated third party is BGP. BGP requires an ASN. See above for why a public ASN may be more desirable under this circumstance than a private one.
As to the references to RFC-1930, I think they are anachronistic at this point.
RFC-1930 was written before 32-bit ASNs were available and with a strong eye to the coming shortage of 16-bit ASNs. While I agree that even the 32-bit pool of ASNs is finite, I don’t think we’re going to cause a shortage of them by allowing single-homed organizations with PI space who plan to multihome at an unspecified future time to receive one.
As such, I believe such a policy would do no harm and provide benefit to some members of the community. If it were proposed, I would support it.
Owen
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On 2/27/15 16:05 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
So a "maybe someday" ASN?
So anyone who has PI space and doesn't already have an ASN gets allocated one regardless of need. Any new member who gets PI space gets an ASN allocated as a matter of course.
Don't allocated one if they don't want one. But if they want one, and they already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no? And its not regardless of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need.
If someone gets an ASN, and uses it, when they get PI, they will have a much easier time porting to a new provider, or better yet, becoming multi-homed and/or participating in an IX in the future.
So, don't force them to get an ASN, just don't force then wait until they multi-home their PI either.
Any additional ASN requested by a member must conform to existing policy.
The exact wording of the current policy may or may not be right for the situation, but that is the basic idea. Also, you should still be able to get an ASN to do PA multi-homing, if you are multi-homing with a cut-out from an upstream provider.
Is this where we're at? Change the proposal and see where we get to.
Yes, please.
Why not make it your APNIC membership number and be done with it :). That lowers the barrier even further and means that people wouldn't need assistance applying for them.
That's silly, your APNIC Member number should just be your credit card number. :)
Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done.
What you are suggesting *IS* regardless of need, and thats what I think people are missing. If you are not required to demonstrate need to get something, then it is allocated regardless of need. I realise this might seem semantic, but policy is all about semantics.
This 'anticipation of future need' stuff is at best ethereal and at worst a fallacy. Lets not forget that there is an almost zero barrier to entry with regard to ASN allocation should the member require one. I just don't subscribe to this "I may one day require one so give it to me now"
It's the same as saying "I don't require an IPv6 allocation today, but I anticipate that at some point I'll need a /10. Just give it all to me now so that I don't have to make difficult design decisions later."
If everyone gets one then I can live with that. What I can't live with is opening up a can of worms with a "I might one day need something so please allocate it now". It's a dangerous slippery slope. Today ASNs, Tomorrow IPv4, next day IPv6. -- 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 Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer farmer@umn.edu wrote:
On 2/27/15 16:05 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
So a "maybe someday" ASN?
So anyone who has PI space and doesn't already have an ASN gets allocated one regardless of need. Any new member who gets PI space gets an ASN allocated as a matter of course.
Don't allocated one if they don't want one. But if they want one, and they already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no? And its not regardless of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need.
If someone gets an ASN, and uses it, when they get PI, they will have a much easier time porting to a new provider, or better yet, becoming multi-homed and/or participating in an IX in the future.
So, don't force them to get an ASN, just don't force then wait until they multi-home their PI either.
Any additional ASN requested by a member must conform to existing policy.
The exact wording of the current policy may or may not be right for the situation, but that is the basic idea. Also, you should still be able to get an ASN to do PA multi-homing, if you are multi-homing with a cut-out from an upstream provider.
Is this where we're at? Change the proposal and see where we get to.
Yes, please.
Why not make it your APNIC membership number and be done with it :). That lowers the barrier even further and means that people wouldn't need assistance applying for them.
That's silly, your APNIC Member number should just be your credit card number. :)
--
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 ================================================
Hi all,
I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
Cheers, Sanjaya ------- Deputy Director General, APNIC
On 28/Feb/15 02:02, Sanjaya Sanjaya wrote:
Hi all,
I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
I think this highlights the issue in question - there need not be any linear relationship between IP addressing and ASN routing. Service providers (and end users) simply care about being online. The biggest issue around that is how devices can be uniquely addressed on the Internet, more so for China given how many they are as a populace, and how many IPv4 addresses are (not) left for them to chew on.
If a service provider can fix their most pressing issue, which is a lack of IP addresses, that might rate higher in priority than needing an ASN if they do not necessarily have a need to define their routing policy separate from their ISP's or the rest of the Internet.
My concern with issuing an ASN to anyone that obtains PI space is that PI space can be obtained both by service providers and non-service providers. Are we saying that a mom-and-pop shop that qualifies for PI should also get an ASN? If, for some reason, technology suggests that every mobile phone needs PI space because we've got tons of it in IPv6, and RIR policy is updated to cover such use-cases, suddenly, 4.2 billion ASN's does not seem like a lot anymore.
I suppose the issue here is that as many billions as the resources are, they are still finite. We do not know what might increase their rate of take-up in the future, but if history is anything to go by, the opportunity is always there. So allocating ASN's "just because" is something I do not support, as an up & coming enterprise that needs IPv6 PI space may not have a need to advertise their routing policy to the Internet, because they are a simple shop who rely on their ISP for all their routing.
Mark.
Excellent, thank you Sanjaya for that.
...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 ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all,
I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
Cheers, Sanjaya
Deputy Director General, APNIC
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
Thanks Sanjaya
The last slide asks some questions. What were the answers from the audiences you were presenting to?
-- 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 Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all,
I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
Cheers, Sanjaya
Deputy Director General, APNIC
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
HI Dean, here's the finding. Mind you I spoke mostly to existing members. we should probably ask prospective members too.
- Not all ISP provides (or those who do only do so very selectively) BGP connection service - Lack of carrier neutral IXPs in some economies - Limited networking knowledge and skills
Cheers, Sanjaya
-----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:dean@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015 10:57 AM To: Sanjaya Sanjaya Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Thanks Sanjaya
The last slide asks some questions. What were the answers from the audiences you were presenting to?
-- 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 Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all,
I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks!
Cheers, Sanjaya
Deputy Director General, APNIC
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
On 28/Feb/15 03:56, Sanjaya Sanjaya wrote:
HI Dean, here's the finding. Mind you I spoke mostly to existing members. we should probably ask prospective members too.
- Not all ISP provides (or those who do only do so very selectively) BGP connection service
- Lack of carrier neutral IXPs in some economies
- Limited networking knowledge and skills
All of which are normal states of the Internet.
Mark.
Personally, I also faced the same complexity about the "mandatory multi-homing requirement" when i tried to apply for ASN of new ISP.
I support this by considering "organizations are not tempted to provide wrong information " . Make simple and authenticate information .
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:43 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
Activity Summary
- 3132 days inactive
- 3132 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 13 participants
- 26 comments