[sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation.

[Skeeve Stevens]

Hi all,

Having read (most of) the feedback, Aftab and I will be putting a new
version out probably either late Sunday or Early Monday.  I am at Haneda
Airport flying to Fukuoka now and Aftab arrives in Tokyo and I believe will
be arriving tomorrow morning. Once we've had time to confer, we will issue
new wording.

The object of this policy is to remove the need to be multi-homed to get
your *initial* ASN.  It is not designed to hand out ASN's like candy, not
provide them to people who have no intention of multi-homing.

It is designed for those who wish to announce their portable ranges via
their own ASN using whatever routing policy they determine to be
appropriate for the operation of their network, but removing the
requirement to be immediately multi-homed, but having the intention to
multi-home at some point (the timeframe should not be mandated) - whether
that be permanently or not is not relevant.

Any subsequent allocations would fall under the same criteria, plus the
extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify additional
ASN's.

The wording will be based around the above.

The cases for this policy are numerous and the reasons Aftab and I are
doing this together is to address several of them.

- Entities not meeting the multi-homing criteria due to economic
circumstances, regional access, etc.

- Smaller entities, such as businesses with portable address space that
would like more control and flexibility over how they announce their
networks, and plan for multi-homing either as a future facility or for
cloud/elastic on demand purposes.

The major use case from my perspective is:

- Due to IP runout (ISPs having less and charging more), and some
requirements for being portable, I am assisting *many* businesses become
APNIC members and their own address space.  Many of these initially are not
multi-homed, but are planning to in the short period as they consider the
elastic infrastructure available to them over new initiatives like Megaport
and others - where layer 2, BGP to many 'service' providers is the new way
of doing business.  I did a presentation on Megaport and Elastic X-Connect
Fabrics at the last APNIC in Brisbane for those who saw it.

In Australia (and I am sure other places too), there is the new concept of
opportunistic capacity - being able to buy transit on an as-needs basis for
any determined time period... 1 week, 1 day, even hourly.  An operator
might be single homed, but may wish to bring on elastic/On Demand transit
capacity for short periods of time - at which point the would be
multi-homed, but then disconnect and then be single-homed again.

Here is a news article about this offering:
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/networking/65730-intabank-partners-with-megaport

Megaport is across Australia ,Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand and heading
for the US and Europe - as well as other elastic fabrics such as Pacnet's
PEN, Equinix Cloud Exchange, IX Australia and others coming.  This way of
doing business will be commonplace for businesses in certain regions
rapidly over 2015 - especially as

To cater for this explosion in elastic fabrics and marketplaces that serve
them, the policy framework has to facilitate a smooth way of doing this new
'cloud' kind of business - without businesses having to 'fudge the truth'
to get thr required resources.

APNIC has ability to do rapid memberships within a very short period (1
day) with address space and ASN's up and running very quickly.

This is the key reason for my proposed change to policies 113 and 114, as
well as supporting Aftabs motivations on assisting smaller providers in
regional areas, or economically challenged locations where multi-homing is
not as easy as it might be elsewhere, prepare their networks to participate
in being multi-homed for the standard reasons.

If you have any comments about this, or have any advice on wording,
restrictions, we would love to hear from you by tomorrow PM so we can
consider your thoughts and also any perceived problems with the policy and
(preferably) with ways to meet the need, but deal with any potential abuse.

Thanks.



...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 ;  
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers


> ---
> prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
> ---
>
> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
>   aftab.siddi...@gmail.com
>
>   Skeeve Stevens
>   ske...@eintellegonetworks.com
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> 
>
> The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria
> and both should be ful

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation.

[David Huberman]

Hello,

[Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.]

Regarding your sentence:

"Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the same 
criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify 
additional ASNs."

I humbly request the draft policy authors, the working group community, and the 
APNIC staff to think carefully about how such policy language will be written, 
and how such a policy would be implemented.

My experiences have taught me that the answer to the question, "why do you need 
an additional AS number?" is not easily captured in either policy language or 
RIR procedures. Why? Because networks are not all built the same.

In well-known situations, there are both regulatory and market-based forces 
which sometimes back network operators into engineering designs which lack 
polish. Secondly, network architects like to apply creative solutions to 
complex situations. What this means in the real world of network operations is 
that just because you would design Network X to use one AS number doesn't mean 
I designed it that way; my solution calls for two or three AS numbers.  And 
this is important because the RIR (in both its AS number policies and its 
internal procedures for reviewing requests) needs to recognize that when a 
network operator states he needs an additional AS number, he probably does.

Most importantly, the RIR staff should not be put in a position to have to 
fully understand a network architecture and
be required to adjudicate its worthiness for an additional AS number.

Thank you for any consideration you can give to this matter, and I look forward 
to our discussions this week in Fukuoka.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net  
on behalf of Skeeve Stevens 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:45:12 PM
Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - 
explanation.

Hi all,

Having read (most of) the feedback, Aftab and I will be putting a new version 
out probably either late Sunday or Early Monday.  I am at Haneda Airport flying 
to Fukuoka now and Aftab arrives in Tokyo and I believe will be arriving 
tomorrow morning. Once we've had time to confer, we will issue new wording.

The object of this policy is to remove the need to be multi-homed to get your 
initial ASN.  It is not designed to hand out ASN's like candy, not provide them 
to people who have no intention of multi-homing.

It is designed for those who wish to announce their portable ranges via their 
own ASN using whatever routing policy they determine to be appropriate for the 
operation of their network, but removing the requirement to be immediately 
multi-homed, but having the intention to multi-home at some point (the 
timeframe should not be mandated) - whether that be permanently or not is not 
relevant.

Any subsequent allocations would fall under the same criteria, plus the extra 
burden of justification by the secretariat to justify additional ASN's.

The wording will be based around the above.

The cases for this policy are numerous and the reasons Aftab and I are doing 
this together is to address several of them.

- Entities not meeting the multi-homing criteria due to economic circumstances, 
regional access, etc.

- Smaller entities, such as businesses with portable address space that would 
like more control and flexibility over how they announce their networks, and 
plan for multi-homing either as a future facility or for cloud/elastic on 
demand purposes.

The major use case from my perspective is:

- Due to IP runout (ISPs having less and charging more), and some requirements 
for being portable, I am assisting many businesses become APNIC members and 
their own address space.  Many of these initially are not multi-homed, but are 
planning to in the short period as they consider the elastic infrastructure 
available to them over new initiatives like Megaport and others - where layer 
2, BGP to many 'service' providers is the new way of doing business.  I did a 
presentation on Megaport and Elastic X-Connect Fabrics at the last APNIC in 
Brisbane for those who saw it.

In Australia (and I am sure other places too), there is the new concept of 
opportunistic capacity - being able to buy transit on an as-needs basis for any 
determined time period... 1 week, 1 day, even hourly.  An operator might be 
single homed, but may wish to bring on elastic/On Demand transit capacity for 
short periods of time - at which point the would be multi-homed, but then 
disconnect and then be single-homed again.

Here is a news article about this offering: 
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/networking/65730-intabank-partners-with-megaport

Megaport is across Australia ,Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand and heading for 
the US and Europe - as 

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation.

[Mark Tinka]

What he said...

Mark.

On 28/Feb/15 05:25, David Huberman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.]
>
> Regarding your sentence:
>
> "Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the
> same criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the
> secretariat to justify additional ASNs."
>
> I humbly request the draft policy authors, the working group
> community, and the APNIC staff to think carefully about how such
> policy language will be written, and how such a policy would be
> implemented.
>
> My experiences have taught me that the answer to the question, "why do
> you need an additional AS number?" is not easily captured in either
> policy language or RIR procedures. Why? Because networks are not all
> built the same.
>
> In well-known situations, there are both regulatory and market-based
> forces which sometimes back network operators into engineering designs
> which lack polish. Secondly, network architects like to apply creative
> solutions to complex situations. What this means in the real world of
> network operations is that just because you would design Network X to
> use one AS number doesn't mean I designed it that way; my solution
> calls for two or three AS numbers.  And this is important because the
> RIR (in both its AS number policies and its internal procedures for
> reviewing requests) needs to recognize that when a network operator
> states he needs an additional AS number, he probably does.
>
> Most importantly, the RIR staff should not be put in a position to
> have to fully understand a network architecture and
> be required to adjudicate its worthiness for an additional AS number.
>
> Thank you for any consideration you can give to this matter, and I
> look forward to our discussions this week in Fukuoka.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
> 
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
>  on behalf of Skeeve Stevens
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2015 5:45:12 PM
> *Cc:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
> criteria - explanation.
>  
> Hi all,
>
> Having read (most of) the feedback, Aftab and I will be putting a new
> version out probably either late Sunday or Early Monday.  I am at
> Haneda Airport flying to Fukuoka now and Aftab arrives in Tokyo and I
> believe will be arriving tomorrow morning. Once we've had time to
> confer, we will issue new wording.
>
> The object of this policy is to remove the need to be multi-homed to
> get your */initial/* ASN.  It is not designed to hand out ASN's like
> candy, not provide them to people who have no intention of multi-homing.
>
> It is designed for those who wish to announce their portable ranges
> via their own ASN using whatever routing policy they determine to be
> appropriate for the operation of their network, but removing the
> requirement to be immediately multi-homed, but having the intention to
> multi-home at some point (the timeframe should not be mandated) -
> whether that be permanently or not is not relevant.
>
> Any subsequent allocations would fall under the same criteria, plus
> the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify
> additional ASN's.
>
> The wording will be based around the above.
>
> The cases for this policy are numerous and the reasons Aftab and I are
> doing this together is to address several of them.
>
> - Entities not meeting the multi-homing criteria due to economic
> circumstances, regional access, etc.
>
> - Smaller entities, such as businesses with portable address space
> that would like more control and flexibility over how they announce
> their networks, and plan for multi-homing either as a future facility
> or for cloud/elastic on demand purposes.
>
> The major use case from my perspective is:
>
> - Due to IP runout (ISPs having less and charging more), and some
> requirements for being portable, I am assisting *many* businesses
> become APNIC members and their own address space.  Many of these
> initially are not multi-homed, but are planning to in the short period
> as they consider the elastic infrastructure available to them over new
> initiatives like Megaport and others - where layer 2, BGP to many
> 'service' providers is the new way of doing business.  I did a
> presentation on Megaport and Elastic X-Connect Fabrics at the last
> APNIC in Brisbane for those who saw it.
>
> In Australia (and I am sure other places too), there is the new
> concept of opportunistic capacity - being able t

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - explanation.

[Skeeve Stevens]

Sorry, to clarify.

There is already an existing process for subsequent ASN process which the
secretariat follows (I think?).  I am not intending on changing anything to
do with that... just the initial ASN allocation.


...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 ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, David Huberman <
david.huber...@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Hello,
>
> [Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.]
>
> Regarding your sentence:
>
> "Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the same
> criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to
> justify additional ASNs."
>
> I humbly request the draft policy authors, the working group community,
> and the APNIC staff to think carefully about how such policy language will
> be written, and how such a policy would be implemented.
>
> My experiences have taught me that the answer to the question, "why do you
> need an additional AS number?" is not easily captured in either policy
> language or RIR procedures. Why? Because networks are not all built the
> same.
>
> In well-known situations, there are both regulatory and market-based
> forces which sometimes back network operators into engineering designs
> which lack polish. Secondly, network architects like to apply creative
> solutions to complex situations. What this means in the real world of
> network operations is that just because you would design Network X to use
> one AS number doesn't mean I designed it that way; my solution calls for
> two or three AS numbers.  And this is important because the RIR (in both
> its AS number policies and its internal procedures for reviewing requests)
> needs to recognize that when a network operator states he needs an
> additional AS number, he probably does.
>
> Most importantly, the RIR staff should not be put in a position to have to
> fully understand a network architecture and
> be required to adjudicate its worthiness for an additional AS number.
>
> Thank you for any consideration you can give to this matter, and I look
> forward to our discussions this week in Fukuoka.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
> --
> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net <
> sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> on behalf of Skeeve Stevens <
> ske...@v4now.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2015 5:45:12 PM
> *Cc:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility
> criteria - explanation.
>
>  Hi all,
>
>  Having read (most of) the feedback, Aftab and I will be putting a new
> version out probably either late Sunday or Early Monday.  I am at Haneda
> Airport flying to Fukuoka now and Aftab arrives in Tokyo and I believe will
> be arriving tomorrow morning. Once we've had time to confer, we will issue
> new wording.
>
>  The object of this policy is to remove the need to be multi-homed to get
> your *initial* ASN.  It is not designed to hand out ASN's like candy, not
> provide them to people who have no intention of multi-homing.
>
>  It is designed for those who wish to announce their portable ranges via
> their own ASN using whatever routing policy they determine to be
> appropriate for the operation of their network, but removing the
> requirement to be immediately multi-homed, but having the intention to
> multi-home at some point (the timeframe should not be mandated) - whether
> that be permanently or not is not relevant.
>
>  Any subsequent allocations would fall under the same criteria, plus the
> extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify additional
> ASN's.
>
>  The wording will be based around the above.
>
>  The cases for this policy are numerous and the reasons Aftab and I are
> doing this together is to address several of them.
>
>  - Entities not meeting the multi-homing criteria due to economic
> circumstances, regional access, etc.
>
>  - Smaller entities, such as businesses with portable address space that
> would like more control and flexibility over how they announce their
> networks, and plan for multi-homing either as a future facility or for
> cloud/elastic on demand purposes.
>
>  The major use case from my perspective is:
>
>  - Due to IP runout (ISPs having less and charging more), and some
> requirements for being p