Opposed as written.Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-casebasis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy developmentprocess.OwenOn Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com> wrote:* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *Dear SIG membersA new version of the proposal “prop-114: Modification in the ASNeligibility criteria" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.Information about earlier versions is available from: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 SiddiquiSkeeve Stevens1. Problem statement-----------------------------The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteriaand that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain anASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e.multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be metsimultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting thepolicy.As a result organizations have either provided incorrect informationto get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they stillhave a valid justification for obtaining an ASN.2. Objective of policy change--------------------------------------In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing tomodify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASNassignment 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 ASNRIPE:Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussionand the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chairdecision)LACNIC:Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homingAFRINIC: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 theAPNIC Secretariat5. Advantages / Disadvantages-----------------------------------------Advantages:By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNICSecretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisionsbased on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a validrequest.Disadvantages:It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtainASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’sin the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually haveany 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 foralternate needs justification.The intention to multi-home in the futureThe applicant is participating in elastic fabrics where therequirements to connect to ‘on demand’ service providers may requireASN/BGP connectivityRegional limitation of obtaining multi-homing connectivity in the‘immediate’ term, but want to design their networks for this capabilityHave a single unique routing policy different to their upstream, but yetare single-homed
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy