Erik and all, I think your idea to exclude 16Bit ASN from the proposal brings us much closer to consensus.
Nevertheless I think we should start discussing about how to "enhance" garbage collection, but this should IMHO not be part of discussion on _this_ proposal. BR Jens On 16.05.2015 09:11, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote: > Hi Gert, > > There are a couple things that I keep reading and hearing in the discussion > here.. > > Run-out of 16 bit as's and garbage collection.. > > May I suggest to Job to look into the following to see if that would fit his > plan moving forward and is in line with what the community thinks is > acceptable. ( personally I don't have a specific preferrence ) > > Exclude the 16 bit AS's from the removal of the multihoming requirement. ( so > it stays as it is currently ) and ask the NCC to keep a close look on the > number of requested AS's per entity to avoid stockpiling and give them the > silent 'right' to question and stop abuse of what we are trying to achieve > here. Also the NCC should include resource garbage collection in the ARC's > and if that is not enough, report that to the community during the ripe > meeting ncc update. > > The above mentioned suggestion could bring us closer to consensus.. It is not > something I have a strong feeling about. It is a suggestion that one can look > at. > > Personally I would go for version 1 of the proposal, no limitations and in > addition ask the ncc to look close to any abusive behaviour. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > >> Op 15 mei 2015 om 14:34 heeft Gert Doering <[email protected]> het volgende >> geschreven: >> >> Dear AP WG, >> >>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:57:20PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >>> The Review Period for the proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement >>> for >>> AS Number Assignments" has been extended until 19 May 2015. >> >> So - we extended this to wait for the AGM decision on "charging for AS >> numbers". The AGM decided, and the clear majority decide to not introduce >> annual charges for AS numbers - my life would be easier otherwise, but >> this is what was decided, so respect it and see how we can achive our >> goals here :-) >> >> Feedback for this proposal so far was, if I simplify a bit >> >> - we want to take care not to exhaust 16bit-ASNs >> - there is unlimited number of 32bit ASNs >> (but there *also* was feedback about "N. from I. could go out and >> register all 4 billion 32bit ASNs, and exhaust the system"... now what?) >> >> - we might want a garbage collection / reclamation mechanism >> >> - the current policy text is too complicate, arbitrary numbers are bad >> >> but there *is* quite a bit of support for the generic idea of "loosen up >> the rules for 32bit ASNs, as the multihoming requirement is often hard >> or impossible to demonstrate or check". >> >> So, what should we (or, more precise, the proposers) do to get there? >> >> Nick, I'm actually looking at you since you threw the most sand into the >> gears here... some specific suggestions how you'd tackle this would >> be welcome. >> >> (Technically, I see no other way than to change text and do another round >> of IA/review phase with the feedback we've received until now - if, based >> on the new background from AGM, everybody who has objected so far is now >> accepting this at it stands to go forward - please say so!) >> >> Gert Doering >> -- APWG chair >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > > !DSPAM:637,5556f3e6233401397117280! > -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: [email protected] HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
