• Date Prev
• Date Next
• Thread Prev
• Thread Next
• Date Index
• Thread Index

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

• To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com>
• Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
• From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
• Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 17:32:19 -0800
• Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
• Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
• Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1425519140; bh=TzDWFGxuacgOzMmCMW8ufmkxlZw=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=Ndi1q2hV/+YnCuwPHt+PoPdp7Qj4li/BV7znQL3njTlA6C4zO1qo6Zc4tMpNz6z/n iav3DfMi0ovVNyfGVA8DweziQkwOnslgsbu+Gd68kM9ppJ90ZsERKFDO9cVKUoTp+l 7bYY1d3dPFCbdkn35KxLDXsvw7oDWdCCqhnqrS3Y=
• In-reply-to: <CAEUfUGO4Ly2pX0vGjHf7e7-kzSf6HgkLzpZeT7S7cWWCiAkxSQ@mail.gmail.com>
• List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
• List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
• List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
• List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
• List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
• List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

I don’t see any rational use case for a second or third ASN where it wouldn’t be peering with at least 2 ASNs. If you can present one, then I could be convinced to reconsider. Owen On Mar 4, 2015, at 16:46 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote: Owen, That is almost, but not quite ok. There may be cases where you have the same reason to do this for a second or third ASN. Say I need one for an isolated network in HK, or NZ, or KH with a completely separate routing policy? The same criteria should apply for the first and 10th? ...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 9:30 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote: 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 Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next Date Index Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next Date Index Thread Index Prev by Date: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria Previous by Thread: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Index(es): Date Thread