Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot 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