Hi Daniel, > That one strikes me as well. I don't know how often people arguing about ASN > stockpiling really apply for ASN's but my experience is that it takes quite a > lot of explanation even to get a second ASN for the same entity. > > But maybe I am missing something here and the "non multihoming" rule means > the NCC will not check anything at all in the future and just give away ASN's > to anyone asking for them, no matter how many?
That is the basic idea: ask for another ASN and you'll get one. Then some participants on this mailing list were worried that someone might request the whole pool. That caused a new version of the proposal to be written with some limits in them. Those limits were chosen in such a way that even the organisation with the largest number of ASNs could request 10x as much as they currently have and still fit in the policy. It is however a 'magic' number. That caused some objections because the policy is now not as clean and simple anymore. So now this working group needs to decide in which direction to move: a very simple and clean policy that is 'ask and you will get', or a policy that places arbitrary limits just in case someone might try to abuse the policy. Or some other form of rate-limiting? If the RIPE NCC started charging for ASNs again then that would be a limiter and a reclaim mechanism. The policy could certainly remain a lot cleaner in that case. Or, just thinking out loud: we could allow the NCC to limit the number of resource requests they accept per week from the same organisation or something like that. With exponential back-off? ;) As a working group we need to decide a few things: - do we want to make it easy to get ASNs? (the answer seems to be "yes") - do we want to place a limit? - do we want a time-based or absolute limit? - do we wait for the next RIPE NCC charging scheme to see if that solves our problems? Cheers, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair
