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

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 18:31 , Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 3/5/15 2:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > >> So, if I wanted to put a connection online in Singapore, and only >> connected to one upstream, but also connect to Megaport, or >> Pac

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/5/15 2:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > 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 fab

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

ists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Skeeve Stevens > *Sent:* Thursday, 5 March 2015 10:43 AM > *To:* David Farmer > *Cc:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the > ASN eligibility criteria > > > > Good question

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

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

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

Stevens Sent: Thursday, 5 March 2015 10:43 AM To: David Farmer Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Good question David. Secretariat... can we have those numbers? ...Skeeve Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP

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

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 wrote: > > Owen, > > That is almost, but not quite ok. > > There m

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

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? ...Skeev

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

Good question David. Secretariat... can we have those numbers? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ;

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

That's actually getting closer to something I could support On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Owen DeLong 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

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

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 APN

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

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 17:47, Skeeve Stevens wrote: ... > 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% > Very interesting and useful

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

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 i

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

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 wo

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

Yes, because it seems to make more sense to you to waste everyones time discussing something that could be sorted out as much as possible on the list before we take it to the SIG. Good one. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com ;

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

I guess we'll get to discuss those issues during the policy sig today. On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Skeeve Stevens 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 ev

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

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: === htt

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

I agree with Owen here. I oppose as written. On Thursday, 5 March 2015, Owen DeLong 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 > pol

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

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 wrote: > > Dear SIG member

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

Hi, On Mar 4, 2015 5:02 PM, "Masato Yamanishi" 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/po

[sig-policy] New version of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

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 th