Hi Job, > Following the outcome of the vote on the new charging scheme, the > inevitable depletion of 16-bit ASNs, opposition to arbitrary limits suck > as '1000', but most importantly the incessant need to obtain ASNs when > one needs them, we have a new simpler version of the proposal ready for > your consideration and review: > > """ > A new AS Number is only assigned when the End User has a need that > cannot be satisfied with an existing AS Number. RIPE NCC will > record, but not evaluate this need.
It occurs to me that in the absence of an economic disincentive against hoarding, there is not really any realistic way forward here except to have the NCC continue to evaluate the applicant's need. That is not to say that "need" must necessarily be equated with "multihoming", as it is today. Two possible approaches: 1) The «Job and Saku scratches their own itch» variant: 2014-03 is changed to simply add its authors' use case(s) to a list of valid use cases (alongside multihoming). If another applicant has some other use case he feels should also be valid, he'll just have to submit his own itch-scratching proposal. 2) Ask the NCC to maintain a public out-of-policy list of valid use cases. Whenever a new applicant comes with potentialy valid use case currently not on the list, APWG could be consulted and greenlight it using a much more informal and fast/lightweight consensus determining procedure than the PDP (e.g., sending a mail to APWG describing the use case and asking if anyone sees any problems with it, if N weeks of silence, it's good). If it ends up being shot down, the applicant can always try his luck with the PDP instead. Tore
