Hi,
On Mar 4, 2015 5:02 PM, "Masato Yamanishi" <myamanis at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASN
> eligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Masato
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> prop-114-v002: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
> aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com
>
> Skeeve Stevens
> skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> -----------------------------
>
> The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria
> and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain 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 where they still
> have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN.
>
>
> 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 providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN.
>
>
> 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 (awaiting Chair
> decision)
>
> 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:
>
> - they are currently multi-homed OR
>
> - meet one of the other criteria in the guidelines managed by the
> APNIC Secretariat
>
What will be other criteria? Can someone list those for discussion?
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC
> Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions
> based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid
> request.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain
> ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s
> in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with
> ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have
> any effect.
>
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> ---------------------------------------
>
> No impact on existing resource holders.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Proposed Draft Guidelines
> (to be created as a numbered document by APNIC)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The below are example of guidelines that could be considered for
> alternate needs justification.
>
> The intention to multi-home in the future
>
> The applicant is participating in elastic fabrics where the
> requirements to connect to ‘on demand’ service providers may require
> ASN/BGP connectivity
>
> Regional limitation of obtaining multi-homing connectivity in the
> ‘immediate’ term, but want to design their networks for this capability
>
> Have a single unique routing policy different to their upstream, but yet
> are single-homed
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>