Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligib

I don’t feel the need for every use case to be set in stone, but I do think that there are better ways to address this.

Is there any reason that adding the following to the existing policy would be unacceptable to you?

…

or an organization which has received an assignment or allocation from APNIC and has not previously obtained an ASN may obtain one ASN upon request for purposes of setting up peering for their network with one or more other other autonomous systems.

Why would that not suffice?

Owen

On Mar 4, 2015, at 15:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote:

Owen,

It just feels like nitpicking and moving chairs around. I actually trust the Secretariat to do the right thing when allocating resources. We're also talking about a resource where there are over 4.1 billion ASN's still available... not that it should be a justification to wastage, but it is useful for context.

The APNIC stats are:

How many ASN - % of Membership
no ASN
34.06%
1
56.59%
2
5.55%
3
1.78%
4
0.77%
5
0.35%
6
0.28%
7
0.15%
8
0.04%
10
0.13%
more than 10
0.31%

I'm unsure why you guys want to see each and every use-case set in stone. I don't want to have to come back and do amendments picking on a word here or there because there has been an innovation in the way networks are operated.

I fully support the idea that this isn't a free-for-all.. but we need some flexibility in the community.

...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve at v4now dot 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 Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote:
If said standard pre-existing procedure were subject to the PDP, I’d be fine with that.

However, that’s not what the wording implies. In the case of the IPv6 policy, I think this is less than desirable, but it’s not on the table in this discussion.

Certainly if someone proposed removing that wording from the IPv6 policy, I would support such a proposal.

Owen

On Mar 4, 2015, at 14:58 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote:

Do we just move the 'proposed draft guidelines' to cases under 3.3?

We were trying to be flexible for future use cases without going through this painful process for every future valid use case that comes up in future.

This is an established process where for subsequent IPv6 allocations:

=== http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3.2 ====

5.3.2 Alternative allocation criteria

Alternatively, a subsequent allocation may be provided where an organization (ISP/LIR) can demonstrate a valid reason for requiring the subsequent allocation. For guidelines on what will be considered a valid technical or other reason, see “APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests”.

http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-guidelines
===

Why isn't a standard pre-existing procedure acceptable to you?

...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks service
skeeve at v4now dot 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 Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote:
Opposed as written.

Vague wording which basically says that the secretariat can decide policy on a case-by-case
basis is antithetical to an informed multi-stakeholder community consensus policy development
process.

Owen

On Mar 4, 2015, at 00:02 , 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

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

* 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

no ASN	34.06%
1	56.59%
2	5.55%
3	1.78%
4	0.77%
5	0.35%
6	0.28%
7	0.15%
8	0.04%
10	0.13%
more than 10	0.31%