- To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
- From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:13:19 +0900
- 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
- In-reply-to: <3430BF54-3806-4186-9868-FACBD197AD57 at delong dot 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>
Owen,
See my case of the elastic network.
Using Megaport as an example, they are now online in Australia, Auckland, Singapore and Hong Kong and are going to many US cities next year. Each country (at the moment) fabric is an isolated infrastructure.
So, if I wanted to put a connection online in Singapore, and only connected to one upstream, but also connect to Megaport, or Pacnets PEN - or to Megaports MLPA IX - which is state based - or other fabric, then I could need an ASN, and the routing policy would be unique to that location. Rinse and repeat for other locations.
...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 10:32 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote:
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.OwenOn 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?
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve at v4now dot com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeveIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn 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?OwenOn 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
I fully support the idea that this isn't a free-for-all.. but we need some flexibility in the community.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve at v4now dot com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeveIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn 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.OwenOn 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?
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - Senior IP Brokerv4Now - an eintellego Networks serviceskeeve at v4now dot com ; www.v4now.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeveIP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyersOn 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-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
* 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