Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Sanjeev, See criterion #3 at https://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/02/2-byte-asn-run-out/ for a brief explanation of why 2-byte ASNs are still preferred for IXP peering. Scott On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Sanjeev Gupta sanj...@dcs1.biz wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Woodgate dwoodga...@gmail.com wrote: So I feel that: - 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing checks removed; OK. I agree with the reasoning that ASNs are not scarce. But see below. - Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be charged as a disincentive for frivolous requests. Any fees would be too high for small operators, and trivially low for someone with a /15 - Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per account; - Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per AS per year. One ASN free for each /24 allocated? This means we will at worst over-allocate 0.4% of all ASN space - Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs I do not understand this. Why are 2byte ASNs special? Is there new equipment being deployed that needs 2-byte ASNs? Is this a prestige thing? (Serious question): Why would an operator prefer a 2byte over a 4byte? I do not type in my ASN very often. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I support the concept that AS number allocation rules should be relaxed, but I think further work is required to properly define the residual criteria for allocation. Having read the past month's discussion about prop-114, I'll make some observations: Let's not treat 4 billion (4-byte) AS numbers as precious. They're only route attributes, and not actual routes, and they can only be used with BGP routing, so their utility is high restricted, and their potential for direct abuse limited. (Large numbers of AS numbers by themselves don't explode routing tables, for example.) If we consume 10,000 per year globally, then it will be 400,000 years before we exhaust the space - so I think we can afford some waste. We also only allocate AS numbers as individual numbers, and not as blocks of thousands or millions in the way we did for IPv4, and so greatly reducing the chance for massive waste. We could argue back and forth what constitutes appropriate use of an AS number, but I see limited value in doing so given the enormous space now available (for 4-byte ASs); I feel the pragmatics outweigh the principles here. I therefore believe it is not worth the Hostmasters' time (and therefore the members' money) to make onerous checks on whether AS numbers are being or will be used in a suitable way. I'd rather see fees charged to put the onus on the requester to decide whether they really needed the AS. A cap on the number of ASs per account could also be imposed if considered warranted. So I feel that: - 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing checks removed; - Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be charged as a disincentive for frivolous requests. - Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per account; - Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per AS per year. - Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs Regards, David Woodgate On 4/02/2015 4:57 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change - In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the organization. 3. Situation in other regions - ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --- An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: - Is planning to use it within next 6 months 5. Advantages / Disadvantages - Advantages: Removing the
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote: See criterion #3 at https://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/02/2-byte-asn-run-out/ for a brief explanation of why 2-byte ASNs are still preferred for IXP peering. Scott, thank you. I was looking only at the other peer, and its equipment, supporting 4byte. As we are not using communities (small operator, here), I did not remember that use case. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
HI Dean, here's the finding. Mind you I spoke mostly to existing members. we should probably ask prospective members too. - Not all ISP provides (or those who do only do so very selectively) BGP connection service - Lack of carrier neutral IXPs in some economies - Limited networking knowledge and skills Cheers, Sanjaya -Original Message- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015 10:57 AM To: Sanjaya Sanjaya Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Thanks Sanjaya The last slide asks some questions. What were the answers from the audiences you were presenting to? -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya sanj...@apnic.net wrote: Hi all, I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks! Cheers, Sanjaya --- Deputy Director General, APNIC * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 28/Feb/15 03:08, David Farmer wrote: If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling. I'm suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for an ASN. The PI assignment and what every justified that should also equally justify the need for ASN assignment. The PI assignment was intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to facilitate that portability. I'm saying that the need for portability is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing. True, PI is meant to be portable, which is fine for IPv6 because we have a lot of address space. But don't you worry that you will blow through 4.2 billion ASN's soon if PI allocation policy evolves to become liberal that 4.2 billion PI allocations become a reality? Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 28/Feb/15 03:56, Sanjaya Sanjaya wrote: HI Dean, here's the finding. Mind you I spoke mostly to existing members. we should probably ask prospective members too. - Not all ISP provides (or those who do only do so very selectively) BGP connection service - Lack of carrier neutral IXPs in some economies - Limited networking knowledge and skills All of which are normal states of the Internet. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 27, 2015, at 00:22, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: I'm sure Skeeve also thinks that organisations should be able to get all the IP addresses they might ever need all on day one. I'm sure he even knows a company who could arrange that for them. Well our IPv4 policies are explicitly designed to not provide all the IPv4 addresses an organization needs. Where as with IPv6 that is at least possible, maybe not forever, but there is a goal of 5 to 10 years or more for an initial allocation. Lets see where the community thinks this should go. It still sounds like unlimited ASNs for anyone who thinks they might like to have them. Great business for anyone clipping the ticket on the transaction. Now that we that have 4 billion ASNs, maybe we should reexamine our policy goals for ASNs, at least compared to when we only had 65 thousand ASNs. If we are willing to give an organization a routing slot with IPv4 or IPv6 PA or PI address block, why wouldn't we be willing to give them a ASN too? I would want them to provide additional justification why they need a second ASN, but the mere fact we gave then a PA or PI address block is probably sufficient justification for their first ASN. The reverse is also probably also true, if we are NOT willing to give them a routing slot, we probably should NOT be willing to give them an ASN either, at least without additional justification like multi-homing. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. -- === David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: +1-612-812-9952 === * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn wrote: Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes is important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background instroductions by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a very good way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion. I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will it help that more operators attend the policy discussions? That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider more interesting, then probably not. If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into shopping time, etc. As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest. Owen Cheers, Jessica Shen -邮件原件- 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42 收件人: Mark Tinka 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate. The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development. If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these processes, I’m all ears. Owen On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators filter against as an example. Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani iz...@nic.ad.jp wrote: On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote: I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed. OK, that's an interesting approach. What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN. I can see a few reasons. 1. The difficulty of renumbering from a private ASN is proportional to the number of links, not the number of ASNs. Ergo, someone who is single homed, but plans to become multihomed at some unspecified date in the future may, indeed, have good reason for wanting to do so with a public ASN. 2. I see very little harm in adopting such a policy, so long as it is limited to one ASN per organization. 3. If you have multiple links to a provider with diverse topology, it is desirable to be able to use a routing protocol in order to prevent black-holing traffic across down links, etc. The only routing protocol any sane ISP would run with an unrelated third party is BGP. BGP requires an ASN. See above for why a public ASN may be more desirable under this circumstance than a private one. As to the references to RFC-1930, I think they are anachronistic at this point. RFC-1930 was written before 32-bit ASNs were available and with a strong eye to the coming shortage of 16-bit ASNs. While I agree that even the 32-bit pool of ASNs is finite, I don’t think we’re going to cause a shortage of them by allowing single-homed organizations with PI space who plan to multihome at an unspecified future time to receive one. As such, I believe such a policy would do no harm and provide benefit to some members of the community. If it were proposed, I would support it. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
So a maybe someday ASN? So anyone who has PI space and doesn't already have an ASN gets allocated one regardless of need. Any new member who gets PI space gets an ASN allocated as a matter of course. Any additional ASN requested by a member must conform to existing policy. Is this where we're at? Change the proposal and see where we get to. Why not make it your APNIC membership number and be done with it :). That lowers the barrier even further and means that people wouldn't need assistance applying for them. On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani iz...@nic.ad.jp javascript:; wrote: On 2015/02/27 17:58, Usman Latif wrote: I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed. OK, that's an interesting approach. What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN. I can see a few reasons. 1. The difficulty of renumbering from a private ASN is proportional to the number of links, not the number of ASNs. Ergo, someone who is single homed, but plans to become multihomed at some unspecified date in the future may, indeed, have good reason for wanting to do so with a public ASN. 2. I see very little harm in adopting such a policy, so long as it is limited to one ASN per organization. 3. If you have multiple links to a provider with diverse topology, it is desirable to be able to use a routing protocol in order to prevent black-holing traffic across down links, etc. The only routing protocol any sane ISP would run with an unrelated third party is BGP. BGP requires an ASN. See above for why a public ASN may be more desirable under this circumstance than a private one. As to the references to RFC-1930, I think they are anachronistic at this point. RFC-1930 was written before 32-bit ASNs were available and with a strong eye to the coming shortage of 16-bit ASNs. While I agree that even the 32-bit pool of ASNs is finite, I don’t think we’re going to cause a shortage of them by allowing single-homed organizations with PI space who plan to multihome at an unspecified future time to receive one. As such, I believe such a policy would do no harm and provide benefit to some members of the community. If it were proposed, I would support it. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed. Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are not multihomed as they use the same provider. I am not sure if the current proposal allows for assignment of a public ASN for the above situation? If not, then this should be brought into scope because controlling traffic and AS-loops using private ASNs becomes challenging for organisations that have single-homed-but-multiple-links-to-same-provider-scenarios Regards, Usman On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:10 pm, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: This is where the big different in philosophy is. I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be multi-homed - 'at some point' Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you are ready. Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work. ...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 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: It did say immediate future. I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that you're going to multihome in the immediate future that you would know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. If it was more of a Well at some point we might want to multihome, then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are closer to peering. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they may or may not multhome in future. right? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
How so? If not, then this should be brought into scope because controlling traffic and AS-loops using private ASNs becomes challenging for organisations that have single-homed-but-multiple-links-to-same-provider-scenarios Regards, Usman On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:10 pm, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@v4now.com'); wrote: This is where the big different in philosophy is. I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be multi-homed - 'at some point' Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you are ready. Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz'); wrote: It did say immediate future. I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that you're going to multihome in the immediate future that you would know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. If it was more of a Well at some point we might want to multihome, then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are closer to peering. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz'); To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com'); wrote: Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they may or may not multhome in future. right? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sig-policy@lists.apnic.net'); http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sig-policy@lists.apnic.net'); http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sig-policy@lists.apnic.net'); http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 2015/02/27 18:16, Mark Tinka wrote: On 27/Feb/15 10:58, Usman Latif wrote: I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed. Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are not multihomed as they use the same provider. BGP does not concern itself with how many links it is running over. Networks on the Internet have no idea how many links exist between you and your service provider(s). All they see is the NLRI your network purports to originate. So really, being multi-homed has little bearing on how many links you have to one or more providers, but rather with how many different providers you share your routing policy with. In BGP's mind (and in the classic definition of multi-homing as our community understands it today), you could have 100x links to the same ISP, but to the world, you still appear to be behind a single ISP, not behind 100x links. Indeed. If we look at the definition of multihoming on APNIC Guangliang have shared on this mailing list, it doesn't specify how many links and it defines criteria based on ASNs. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Izumi * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
That was bad planning :(. I was thinking of doing a lightening, but policy is more important. ...Skeeve On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning talks on Thursday. It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators. On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen shen...@cnnic.cn javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','shen...@cnnic.cn'); wrote: Owen, What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'? Jessica Shen -原始邮件- 发件人: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六) 收件人: Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn 抄送: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn wrote: Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes is important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background instroductions by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a very good way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion. I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will it help that more operators attend the policy discussions? That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider more interesting, then probably not. If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into shopping time, etc. As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest. Owen Cheers, Jessica Shen -邮件原件- 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42 收件人: Mark Tinka 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate. The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development. If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these processes, I’m all ears. Owen On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators filter against as an example. Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz'); To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. -- ...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
That's what we strive for. Something for everyone :) On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com wrote: That was bad planning :(. I was thinking of doing a lightening, but policy is more important. ...Skeeve On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz'); wrote: We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning talks on Thursday. It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators. On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen shen...@cnnic.cn wrote: Owen, What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'? Jessica Shen -原始邮件- 发件人: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六) 收件人: Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn 抄送: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn wrote: Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes is important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background instroductions by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a very good way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion. I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will it help that more operators attend the policy discussions? That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider more interesting, then probably not. If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into shopping time, etc. As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest. Owen Cheers, Jessica Shen -邮件原件- 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42 收件人: Mark Tinka 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate. The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development. If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these processes, I’m all ears. Owen On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators filter against as an example. Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. -- ...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus) -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 28/Feb/15 02:02, Sanjaya Sanjaya wrote: Hi all, I'm neither for nor against the proposal. As an additional information I'd like to share a presentation that I made early last year about ASNs in the Asia Pacific region, when I visited a few operators in China. While it highlighted the relatively low use of ASNs in AP region compared to Europe and North America, it didn't put blame on allocation policy. But could or should the policy help? I don't know. It's up to the community to decide. We've had a very good discussion so far. Thanks! I think this highlights the issue in question - there need not be any linear relationship between IP addressing and ASN routing. Service providers (and end users) simply care about being online. The biggest issue around that is how devices can be uniquely addressed on the Internet, more so for China given how many they are as a populace, and how many IPv4 addresses are (not) left for them to chew on. If a service provider can fix their most pressing issue, which is a lack of IP addresses, that might rate higher in priority than needing an ASN if they do not necessarily have a need to define their routing policy separate from their ISP's or the rest of the Internet. My concern with issuing an ASN to anyone that obtains PI space is that PI space can be obtained both by service providers and non-service providers. Are we saying that a mom-and-pop shop that qualifies for PI should also get an ASN? If, for some reason, technology suggests that every mobile phone needs PI space because we've got tons of it in IPv6, and RIR policy is updated to cover such use-cases, suddenly, 4.2 billion ASN's does not seem like a lot anymore. I suppose the issue here is that as many billions as the resources are, they are still finite. We do not know what might increase their rate of take-up in the future, but if history is anything to go by, the opportunity is always there. So allocating ASN's just because is something I do not support, as an up coming enterprise that needs IPv6 PI space may not have a need to advertise their routing policy to the Internet, because they are a simple shop who rely on their ISP for all their routing. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
In addition, to clariry, I didn't mean making APRICOT and Policy SIG sessions parallel, but sequential on the same day(s). For example, when operators finish a APOPS session, they can join the Policy session in the next time spot; and when finish the Policy session, they can join another APOPS session. Jessica Shen -原始邮件- 发件人: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六) 收件人: Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn 抄送: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn wrote: Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes is important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background instroductions by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a very good way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion. I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will it help that more operators attend the policy discussions? That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider more interesting, then probably not. If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into shopping time, etc. As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest. Owen Cheers, Jessica Shen -邮件原件- 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] 代表 Owen DeLong 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42 收件人: Mark Tinka 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate. The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development. If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these processes, I’m all ears. Owen On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators filter against as an example. Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 2/27/15 17:41 , Dean Pemberton wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: Don't allocated one if they don't want one. But if they want one, and they already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no? And its not regardless of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need. Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done. Sorry, let me try one more time. What you are suggesting *IS* regardless of need, and thats what I think people are missing. If you are not required to demonstrate need to get something, then it is allocated regardless of need. I realise this might seem semantic, but policy is all about semantics. On this we agree. This 'anticipation of future need' stuff is at best ethereal and at worst a fallacy. Lets not forget that there is an almost zero barrier to entry with regard to ASN allocation should the member require one. I just don't subscribe to this I may one day require one so give it to me now If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling. I'm suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for an ASN. The PI assignment and what every justified that should also equally justify the need for ASN assignment. The PI assignment was intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to facilitate that portability. I'm saying that the need for portability is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing. It's the same as saying I don't require an IPv6 allocation today, but I anticipate that at some point I'll need a /10. Just give it all to me now so that I don't have to make difficult design decisions later. If everyone gets one then I can live with that. What I can't live with is opening up a can of worms with a I might one day need something so please allocate it now. It's a dangerous slippery slope.Today ASNs, Tomorrow IPv4, next day IPv6. It's not that I only might need it, in my opinion it is fundamentally necessary to fulfill the portability of the PI assignment. No need to move the assignment within the routing system, no need for portability and no need for an ASN. But, if you make a PI assignment without allowing me an ASN you've limited its portability and the useability for its intended purpose. Making a PI assignment implies to me, it can be picked up and moved within the routing system, assigning an ASN is needed to facilitate that movement. However, looked at through the lens of multi-homing, portability itself is only a future need. You have to look beyond multi-homing, not abandon the idea of need, to understand what I'm trying say. But, I probably only dug the whole deeper. :) So, I'll stop now. -- David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
So it's back to what I said originally. You're claiming that an ASN is required in order to be a fully fledged member of the PI utilising community. You're also claiming that an ASN isn't an operational element anymore, that it's more like a license to be able to use PI space to it's fullest extend. If it is true, then the only sensible way forward is to allocate them as you become a community member. So we're back to Become an APNIC member, get an ASN Is that really what people are saying and is it really a sensible thing here? -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:08 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: On 2/27/15 17:41 , Dean Pemberton wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: Don't allocated one if they don't want one. But if they want one, and they already have PI, or getting new PI, then why say no? And its not regardless of need, more accurately in anticipation of future need. Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done. Sorry, let me try one more time. What you are suggesting *IS* regardless of need, and thats what I think people are missing. If you are not required to demonstrate need to get something, then it is allocated regardless of need. I realise this might seem semantic, but policy is all about semantics. On this we agree. This 'anticipation of future need' stuff is at best ethereal and at worst a fallacy. Lets not forget that there is an almost zero barrier to entry with regard to ASN allocation should the member require one. I just don't subscribe to this I may one day require one so give it to me now If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling. I'm suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for an ASN. The PI assignment and what every justified that should also equally justify the need for ASN assignment. The PI assignment was intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to facilitate that portability. I'm saying that the need for portability is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing. It's the same as saying I don't require an IPv6 allocation today, but I anticipate that at some point I'll need a /10. Just give it all to me now so that I don't have to make difficult design decisions later. If everyone gets one then I can live with that. What I can't live with is opening up a can of worms with a I might one day need something so please allocate it now. It's a dangerous slippery slope.Today ASNs, Tomorrow IPv4, next day IPv6. It's not that I only might need it, in my opinion it is fundamentally necessary to fulfill the portability of the PI assignment. No need to move the assignment within the routing system, no need for portability and no need for an ASN. But, if you make a PI assignment without allowing me an ASN you've limited its portability and the useability for its intended purpose. Making a PI assignment implies to me, it can be picked up and moved within the routing system, assigning an ASN is needed to facilitate that movement. However, looked at through the lens of multi-homing, portability itself is only a future need. You have to look beyond multi-homing, not abandon the idea of need, to understand what I'm trying say. But, I probably only dug the whole deeper. :) So, I'll stop now. -- David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 27/Feb/15 11:43, Izumi Okutani wrote: OK, that's an interesting approach. What is the reason for this? Would be curious to hear from other operators as well, on what issues it may cause if you are a single homed portable assignment holder and cannot receive a global ASN. My experience with downstreams who have needed address space without the need for an ASN is so they can have independence from their provider's address space, but do not necessarily have the skill-set or budget to run an autonomous system. So I do not think that it is necessarily wise to tie IP address resources to ASN resources in this way, by default. It is a valid operational approach for networks that require the address space - but not the autonomous system routing - to have their upstreams run their address space behind the upstreams ASN. As an operator running network across Africa, Europe and south Asia, we see and handle these use-cases all the time. In my experience, most customers in this scenario are more concerned with address space than routing. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
We have the first policy sig session on at the same time as the Lightning talks on Thursday. It will be interesting to see which attracts more operators. On Saturday, 28 February 2015, Jessica Shen shen...@cnnic.cn wrote: Owen, What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'? Jessica Shen -原始邮件- 发件人: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com javascript:; 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六) 收件人: Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn javascript:; 抄送: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu javascript:;, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi shen...@cnnic.cn javascript:; wrote: Good point, getting greater operator participation in the policy processes is important. APRICOT and APNIC having joint meeting is one of the good ways to bring more operators to APNIC policy discussion. I noticed on the Policy SIG session @APNIC 39, there will be some short background instroductions by APNIC staff (could be someone from the community who is familiar with the policy history in future) before the proposal discussion, I think it's a very good way to faciliate the new comers to understand and join the discussion. I'm thinking if we set part of or whole Policy SIG session on the same days when APRICOT or APCERT sessions are running, say Tuesday, or Wednesday, will it help that more operators attend the policy discussions? That depends. If it’s a parallel track to something operators would consider more interesting, then probably not. If it’s _THE_ track at that time, then it might work, or, it might turn into shopping time, etc. As near as I can tell, the problem is less one of accessibility than interest. Owen Cheers, Jessica Shen -邮件原件- 发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net javascript:; [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net javascript:;] 代表 Owen DeLong 发送时间: 2015年2月27日 4:42 收件人: Mark Tinka 抄送: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate. The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development. If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these processes, I’m all ears. Owen On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu javascript:; wrote: While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators filter against as an example. Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 27/Feb/15 07:34, Izumi Okutani wrote: We would know which organization the ASNs are assigned to, as those upstream ASNs are already used. We don't have a formal mechanism to check the authenticity of the POCs but usually check the e-mails provided are reachable. We would find it suspicious if the domain name of the e-mail provided is different from the domain used for the organization or free e-mail accounts. It's not formal in the sense that we request upstream ASNs to register a POC. I suppose therefore you can still forge domain name, etc, but it is sufficient in our case to give credibility above a certain level. In the AFRINIC region, the membership have been mostly frustrated by this added step by the AFRINIC hostmasters. But personally, I support if they can always enforce it, as it adds some kind of proof that the application information is reasonably genuine and the chances of faking needs are somewhat reduced (which is better than not being reduced). Of course, an applicant could collude with the ISP to let them claim the applicant is, in fact, going to buy services that warrant the allocation of resources. However, this comes back to the integrity of the ISP. Not 100% foolproof, but a step in some direction. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time. - Large organizations like banks and retail chains are switching to TCP/IP for their internal communication. Large numbers of local workstations like cash registers, money machines, and equipment at clerical positions rarely need to have such connectivity. Thing is though that we haven't tossed out the rest of RFC1918 just because some of it didn't age well. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times here as the Best Current Practice even valid today.. an excerpt BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or Routing Domain Identifier. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: It did say immediate future. I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that you're going to multihome in the immediate future that you would know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. If it was more of a Well at some point we might want to multihome, then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are closer to peering. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they may or may not multhome in future. right? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Izumi, Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handle ASN requests in JPNIC. w.r.t JPNIC, do they ask for the details of those ASN (along with contact details) with whom applicant is planning to multi-home in future? Do they have any mechanism to check the authenticity of those ASN and contact details provided? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Aftab, On 2015/02/27 14:19, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: Hi Izumi, Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handle ASN requests in JPNIC. w.r.t JPNIC, do they ask for the details of those ASN (along with contact details) with whom applicant is planning to multi-home in future? Do they have any mechanism to check the authenticity of those ASN and contact details provided? We would know which organization the ASNs are assigned to, as those upstream ASNs are already used. We don't have a formal mechanism to check the authenticity of the POCs but usually check the e-mails provided are reachable. We would find it suspicious if the domain name of the e-mail provided is different from the domain used for the organization or free e-mail accounts. It's not formal in the sense that we request upstream ASNs to register a POC. I suppose therefore you can still forge domain name, etc, but it is sufficient in our case to give credibility above a certain level. Regards, Izumi * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I'm sure Skeeve also thinks that organisations should be able to get all the IP addresses they might ever need all on day one. I'm sure he even knows a company who could arrange that for them. Lets see where the community thinks this should go. It still sounds like unlimited ASNs for anyone who thinks they might like to have them. Great business for anyone clipping the ticket on the transaction. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: This is where the big different in philosophy is. I want to be able to choose to get an ASN and ready my network to be multi-homed - 'at some point' Dean says do it with private ASN and then reconfigure your network when you are ready. Frankly, I still think this is telling me how to plan the building of my networks - and telling me when I should do the work. ...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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: It did say immediate future. I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that you're going to multihome in the immediate future that you would know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. If it was more of a Well at some point we might want to multihome, then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are closer to peering. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they may or may not multhome in future. right? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Izumi Okutani iz...@nic.ad.jp wrote: May I clarify with APNIC hosmaster whether : a. It is a must for an applicant to be multihomed at the time of submitting the request b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request When I became an APNIC member in 2005, and applied for an ASN, I clearly stated that I was _planning_ to multihome. At that time, I did not even have PI address space. I had discussed with two service providers, and provided the network diagram in my application. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 27/Feb/15 07:14, Izumi Okutani wrote: I don't know whether it's adequate to do the same case in the APNIC region but sharing our case as a reference - JPNIC requests for contact information for those ASNs they plan to be connected. We sometimes we contact the upstreams and confirm the plan and this seems to be working OK. AFRINIC do the same thing. They reach out to the ISP that the applicant has listed in their application form to confirm whether, indeed, there are real plans for the applicant to connect to to said ISP. I'm not sure if they do the same for exchange points, as I'm not in that space. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Personally, I also faced the same complexity about the mandatory multi-homing requirement when i tried to apply for ASN of new ISP. I support this by considering organizations are not tempted to provide wrong information . Make simple and authenticate information . On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: It did say immediate future. I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that you're going to multihome in the immediate future that you would know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. If it was more of a Well at some point we might want to multihome, then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are closer to peering. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they may or may not multhome in future. right? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- Regards - Jahangir * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Yes we did... Like when Cisco started rolling out 1.1.1.1 to Wireless Controllers and other things. ...Skeeve On Friday, February 27, 2015, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time. - Large organizations like banks and retail chains are switching to TCP/IP for their internal communication. Large numbers of local workstations like cash registers, money machines, and equipment at clerical positions rarely need to have such connectivity. Thing is though that we haven't tossed out the rest of RFC1918 just because some of it didn't age well. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:; To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times here as the Best Current Practice even valid today.. an excerpt BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or Routing Domain Identifier. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:; wrote: It did say immediate future. I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that you're going to multihome in the immediate future that you would know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. If it was more of a Well at some point we might want to multihome, then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are closer to peering. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:; To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Hi Guangliang, The option b is acceptable. b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they may or may not multhome in future. right? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net javascript:; http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- ...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:08:42PM +, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote: On 2/25/15 11:10 PM, David Farmer wrote: A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw the line. even more slippery slope. eg. AS 29216 has a single upstream, with just 2 prefixes (one v4, one v6). and they have a legitimate need, so size is irrelevant. I agree with Gaurab, attempting to pinpoint where to draw the line in this context is not worth the effort. Talking about 'size', assumes networks can be classified by quantitative metrics. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
In theory, this is why each RIR has a public policy process open to any who choose to participate. The fact that operator participation in the process is limited (voluntarily by the operators themselves) continues to cause problems for operators. This not only affects RIRs, but also the IETF, ICANN, and other multi-stakeholder fora covering various aspects of internet governance and development. If you have a suggestion for getting greater operator participation in these processes, I’m all ears. Owen On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators filter against as an example. Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
We will have new wording soon. ...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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote: Skeeve, As acting chair, I'm neutral for each proposal, but even for me, proposed text sounds everybody can get AS by just saying I need it within 6 months without any explanation howto use it. If your intension is covering more usecases, but not allowing for everyone, can you tweak proposed text? 4. Proposed policy solution --- An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: - Is planning to use it within next 6 months Masato Yamanishi Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com のメッセージ: Dean, What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this. You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes. I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this - WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed. The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network. You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in that way. ...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 Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way. I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here. It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy. This fact has been supported by the current hostmasters. Operators currently have the freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes. There is no change in policy required. I strongly oppose this policy as written. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Thanks Guangliang, That's what I hoped the answer would be and it's great to see that the hostmasters are able to turn these around so quickly. My summary here after all we have discussed is that under the current policy, if there is an operational need (connecting to more than one ASN or to an IXP) for a member to have an ASN, they can apply a short time in advance and generally receive an ASN the next working day. There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then that is against current policy and I'm ok with that. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean, If they meet the policy requirement and no payment requested, they normally will receive an ASN in the next working day. Thanks, Guangliang On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:36 pm, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Thanks for that Guangliang. Thats really helped to clarify the position here. Another question. Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN (assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it being allocated? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session. Thanks Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote: ... There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then that is against current policy and I'm ok with that. Dean From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry. However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a new unique registry assigned ASN. Which you are saying I can't have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX. If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship. But if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated. I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations. I think maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or connected to an IX. A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw the line. -- David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 25, 2015, at 00:32 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you. You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change in network configuration. That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how things should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do it the way they want to. If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to. Even if I agreed with what you have said above, and I do not, this last statement bears no resemblence to the policy you have proposed. If you want to propose a policy that matches your last sentence, I would not oppose that, so long as any additional ASNs had to be issued under the current multihome requirement. However, your proposal doesn’t say someone who has PI space is entitled to 1 ASN. It says anyone who wants one is entitled to as many ASNs as they want. That’s simply a bad idea. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Dean, You are quoting an RFC from 1996 (19 years ago)? What next, the Old Testament? Thou shalt be multi-homed? I don't think this RFC ever envisioned the IP runout and that networks hosted by businesses themselves (of any size) would need multi-homing and in the reading of this, you could make an argument that no-one needs an ASN and that all their upstreams could host their portable space for them. Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has no intention of ever multi-homing. I am wanting to policy to reflect that if a network operator wants to design their network for multi-homing, that they should be able to, with no requirement to immediately multi-home. At no point did I say 'never' multi-home, or no intention of multi-homing the intention should be there. I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way. ...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 Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Actually the RFC makes this clear. There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as BEST CURRENT PRACTICE. Please someone let me know if I've missed an obsolescence here. All of the situations you are talking about are described as rare and should almost never happen. If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a departure from documented current best practice. 5.1 Sample Cases *Single-homed site, single prefix A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout- ing policy as the other customers of the site's service provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout- ing information. This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high- lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of administrative use. In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find it necessary to have a policy different from that of its provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa- rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa- tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites require different routing policies than their parents. Because the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs. *Single-homed site, multiple prefixes Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be placed in an AS of the site's provider. *Multi-homed site Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience. An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers. This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre- sentation of policy and preference among the different service providers. This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing protocols, such as BGP4. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Owen, But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)? I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their upstream connectivity at any particular time. ...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
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Owen, But who determines 'if they need one' ? Them, or you (plural)? I believe they should be able to determine that they need one and be able to get one based on that decision - not told how they should be doing their upstream connectivity at any particular time. ...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 Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho raphael...@ap.equinix.com wrote: All, I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future (which I do agree) What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need it? Currently they all have to commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I guess some religion takes that more seriously than others. They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they need one. Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say something on the lines of ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible for as ASN²? I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why they need one ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it? Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
David, I agree very much with the operational perspective (obviously), but since when in this day and age of infrastructure that size still matters? Having to change your infrastructure (of any size), potentially with outages and so on, is not acceptable if you are able to design around it from day one. I see it enough that a member should be able to proactively design their connectivity (should they want to - no one is being forced here) to have the potential for multi-homing. The silly thing with the multi-homing barrier as Guangliang confirmed, you could multi-home for 1 day and meet the criteria and then disconnect and then you are still allowed to continue using it. So why have the restriction there in the first place? Surely if someone thinks having an ASN is important in their design, they should be allowed to have one. ...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 Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:10 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote: ... There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then that is against current policy and I'm ok with that. Dean From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry. However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a new unique registry assigned ASN. Which you are saying I can't have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX. If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship. But if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated. I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations. I think maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or connected to an IX. A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw the line. -- David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:10 , David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote: On 2/25/15 15:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote: ... There is essentially no barrier to entry here. If a site needs an ASN they are able to receive one. If they want one 'just in case', then that is against current policy and I'm ok with that. Dean From a policy perspective there is no barrier to entry. However, from an operational perspective, I see it a little differently; having deployed my network using a private ASN, I then need to migrate to a new unique registry assigned ASN. Which you are saying I can't have until I've grown to the point were I need to multi-home or connect to an IX. If I'm a small network, this may not be a big hardship. But if you connect to a single provider in multiple cities you could build a fairly extensive network that would not qualify for a registry assigned ASN until you got a second provider or connected to an IX, at which point the transition to the new ASN could be rather complicated. That’s actually not the case. The case is until you choose to multihome or connect to an IX. You can choose to do that with a pretty small network. My home is multihomed, for example. Any network with an IPv4 upstream can get an IPv6 tunnel from HE, turn on BGP, and poof, they are sufficiently multihomed for the APNIC definition. HE has several tunnel servers in the APNIC region to support this. Changing ASNs on peering sessions actually isn’t very hard. There’s a brief period where you have inconsistent origin, but otherwise, it’s mostly one line of config change on each of your border routers. Even if you’ve got a hundred peering sessions, it’s something that can be done in a day or two with a cooperative provider. It might take a few weeks with some of the less responsive providers. However, while I’m not trying to tell anyone how to run their network, I think we can agree that it is pretty foolhearty to get much beyond 2 or 3 peering sessions without mixing in some provider diversity. Further, if you want to plan ahead and deploy an ASN early, turning up an HE tunnel to do that is pretty easy. Unless HE is your only upstream for IPv4, you’re all set at that point. I'm not sure that justifies obliterating the current policy, but there is at least an operational barrier to entry in some situations. I think maybe a compromise would be to allow a network of a certain size to obtain an ASN regardless of having a unique routing policy, being multi-homed, or connected to an IX. I don’t think size is relevant. As I said, I wouldn’t oppose a policy modification that in addition to the current mechanisms, allowed for anyone with a PI allocation or assignment to obtain a single ASN without question. A network of 1 or 2 routers probably doesn't justify an ASN unless it is multi-homed or connected to an IX. A network of 100 routers probably justifies an ASN regardless. Then the question becomes, where to draw the line. I’m having trouble envisioning who would build a network with 100 border routers (only the border routers really count in this case) without connecting to more than one upstream. This smells like looking for a corner case to justify a solution looking for a problem statement. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
While I tend to agree that the current draft policy in its form needs more work, I empathize with the long-held concern of detachment between the RIR and network operations. This is a well-documented issue that affects several other policies within various RIR communities, and not just this one nor APNIC. Take assigned prefix length and what operators filter against as an example. Globally, perhaps we would do well to find way to make RIR operations and policy design reflect the practical day-to-day changes taking place within operator networks, or at the very least, make a provision for them that sufficiently covers what the future may throw up. I don't think any of us have the answers now, but it starts from somewhere. Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:46 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it is to do with flexibility. I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenience of being able to add these things easily. Lets say I was a company with a /23 and upstream into Telstra Only. If I had my own ASN and was announcing to Telstra, then at any time I could add another ISP, IXP, direct peering without having to go apply for an ASN, reconfigure my network to bring the announcement in-house, etc. No you can’t… You just have already done it instead of doing it when you get ready to actually multihome. It’s all the same effort, just a difference in when you have to apply said effort. I also might want to maintain a single provider, but be able to migrate easily to another provider without having to rely on the providers to do the right thing while changing announcements between them. This has some validity, but if you have an overlap period, you’re multihomed during the overlap and eligible for an ASN as a result. I think this policy has VERY valid applications for many smaller entities to be able to have an ASN without having to be multi-homed either initially, or maintain that multi-homing. I don’t believe you lose your ASN if you stop multihoming. As Randy used to say - Why do you have the right to tell me how to manage my network? If I want to be multi-homed, or change my mind and not be, it is none of your damn business. That’s true. But nobody is trying to tell you that. I don’t believe the APNIC policy calls for reclaiming ASNs from entities that are no longer multihomed. It merely prevents issuing ASNs to entities that are not multihomed. The only possible case I can see where this might be useful would be the case of two uplinks to the same ASN that are sufficiently topologically diverse as to make it desirable to do route injection for better failover capabilities. I think this policy change reflects the changing way for businesses to get online since APNIC has run out of IP's, and are often charging significant amounts of money - so people are going to APNIC directly - which they are entitled to do. And being flexible and being able to change their circumstances is a more common thing nowadays. No, this policy change turns APNIC into an ASN pez dispenser which is an undesirable state. You don’t need an ASN to use provider independent addresses, so the rest of the paragraph is a red herring. The flexibility exists. It’s just a question of when one does the work to turn on BGP and get an ASN. I see no reason the community should hand out ASNs to anyone who thinks they might want one for some possible use at some possible time in some possible future. If you want, suggest charging for ASN's... but don't tell networks how they should be connected at any time. Nobody is telling anyone how they should be connected. This is about resource management of a community resource pool, not about dictating operational practice. You can do everything you have said you want to do with your network under the existing policy. You just can’t get an ASN until you actually need one. Imagine where we’d be if we had handed out all the IPv4 space to anyone who thought they might need some someday? Btw... I am happy for this to apply ONLY to ASN4 and not ASN2. There are no more ASN4s than there are IPv4 addresses. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way. I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here. It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy. This fact has been supported by the current hostmasters. Operators currently have the freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes. There is no change in policy required. I strongly oppose this policy as written. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 25, 2015, at 15:50 , Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Dean, You are quoting an RFC from 1996 (19 years ago)? What next, the Old Testament? Thou shalt be multi-homed? I don't think this RFC ever envisioned the IP runout and that networks hosted by businesses themselves (of any size) would need multi-homing and in the reading of this, you could make an argument that no-one needs an ASN and that all their upstreams could host their portable space for them. IP runout was well and truly known to be coming more than 20 years ago. That’s one of the reasons IPv6 was developed so long ago. Please understand, that I am not suggesting giving an ASN to anyone who has no intention of ever multi-homing. Yes you are. You may not intend to suggest that, but your policy proposal wording certainly provides for it. I am wanting to policy to reflect that if a network operator wants to design their network for multi-homing, that they should be able to, with no requirement to immediately multi-home. At no point did I say 'never' multi-home, or no intention of multi-homing the intention should be there. Then propose a policy that does that. The current draft doesn’t. If it has sufficient safeguards against turning the ASN registry into a Pez dispenser, then I will support it. I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they manage their networks should they choose to do it that way. Nobody is objecting to that. However, that’s not a letter of the law interpretation of what you have proposed. Owen ...Skeeve Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker v4Now - an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com mailto:ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com http://www.v4now.com/ Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now http://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoaulinkedin.com/in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy http://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com http://www.theispguy.com/ IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Actually the RFC makes this clear. There is clear guidance within RFC1930 for this which is marked as BEST CURRENT PRACTICE. Please someone let me know if I've missed an obsolescence here. All of the situations you are talking about are described as rare and should almost never happen. If you believe that the RFC is wrong and no longer constitutes best practice, then engage in the IETF community and try and fix this at the source rather than using RIR policy to justify a departure from documented current best practice. 5.1 Sample Cases *Single-homed site, single prefix A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout- ing policy as the other customers of the site's service provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout- ing information. This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high- lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of administrative use. In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find it necessary to have a policy different from that of its provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa- rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa- tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites require different routing policies than their parents. Because the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs. *Single-homed site, multiple prefixes Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be placed in an AS of the site's provider. *Multi-homed site Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience. An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers. This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre- sentation of policy and preference among the different service providers. This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing protocols, such as BGP4. -- Dean Pemberton Technical
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:06 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. Agreed… However, it does allow one to basically get ASNs no matter what, since all one needs to do is cobble up 3 distinct sites and ask for an ASN for each site and then peer the sites with each other. Owen I do not support the proposal -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I don't believe that we have had those conversations. I find
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Feb 24, 2015, at 22:47 , Raphael Ho raphael...@ap.equinix.com wrote: All, I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future (which I do agree) What is the disadvantage for them to get the ASN later, when they actually need it? Currently they all have to commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I guess some religion takes that more seriously than others. They only have to commit fraud if they are determined to get an ASN before they need one. Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say something on the lines of ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible for as ASN²? I think “an ASN” rather than “as ASN”, but I’d need to better understand why they need one ahead of time. What’s wrong with getting the ASN when you need it? Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Dean, If they meet the policy requirement and no payment requested, they normally will receive an ASN in the next working day. Thanks, Guangliang On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:36 pm, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Thanks for that Guangliang. Thats really helped to clarify the position here. Another question. Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN (assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it being allocated? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session. Thanks Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Gaurab, If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy they can receive an ASN assignment. Regards, Guangliang On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guangliang, can you clarify these questions for me. If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel, would that be considered multihoming ? - -gaurab On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I don't believe that we have had those conversations. I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome. YMMV. We are seeing small proposals
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Guangliang, What are the rules about someone with a ASN, later de-multi-homing? ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Gaurab, If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy they can receive an ASN assignment. Regards, Guangliang On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guangliang, can you clarify these questions for me. If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel, would that be considered multihoming ? - -gaurab On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Skeeve, I don't think we have a policy to reclaim those AS Numbers. Regards, Guangliang On 25 Feb 2015, at 7:57 pm, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.commailto:ske...@v4now.com wrote: Guangliang, What are the rules about someone with a ASN, later de-multi-homing? ...Skeeve Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker v4Now - an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.commailto:ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.comhttp://www.v4now.com/ Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4nowhttp://facebook.com/v4now ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeevehttp://linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguyhttp://twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.comhttp://www.theispguy.com/ [http://eintellegonetworks.com/logos/v4now-web05.png] IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.netmailto:g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Gaurab, If they can provide 2 peer ASNs in their application, based on the policy they can receive an ASN assignment. Regards, Guangliang On 25 Feb 2015, at 6:10 pm, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.commailto:gau...@lahai.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guangliang, can you clarify these questions for me. If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel, would that be considered multihoming ? - -gaurab On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nzmailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.commailto:o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nzmailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.commailto:o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this policy change. ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com wrote: Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 : Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here. If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1 billion of those. If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared. philip -- I do not support the proposal -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Nope - Your other email didn't provide any reasons which weren't covered by Philips answer. If you have a peering session to two or more ASNs you are multihomed and you qualify. If you only peer with one ASN then you can do this with a private ASN. If you want to make a change and move from a single peer to more than one then you get quickly get an ASN. You can even get them in advance of a planned network change as seen in the current policy snippet below An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably short time thereafter). No need to change policy. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this policy change. ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com wrote: Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 : Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here. If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1 billion of those. If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared. philip -- I do not support the proposal -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Sorry Dean, I don't agree with you. You guys are trying to tell people how to run their networks, and that they aren't allowed to pre-emptively design their connectivity to allow for changing to multi-homing, or away from it, without going through a change in network configuration. That might be easy for you, but that is simply your opinion on how things should be done... not a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do it the way they want to. If a member has a portable range, they should be entitled to - with no restrictions - a ASN number to be able to BE as portable as they want to. ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Nope - Your other email didn't provide any reasons which weren't covered by Philips answer. If you have a peering session to two or more ASNs you are multihomed and you qualify. If you only peer with one ASN then you can do this with a private ASN. If you want to make a change and move from a single peer to more than one then you get quickly get an ASN. You can even get them in advance of a planned network change as seen in the current policy snippet below An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably short time thereafter). No need to change policy. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: Please see my other email Phil.. there is very valid reasons for this policy change. ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com wrote: Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 : Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here. If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1 billion of those. If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared. philip -- I do not support the proposal -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Dean, I'm not debating the time it takes to get an ASN allocated... I'm talking about everything else around it... and changing your setup when you shouldn't even have to... again, you're telling people how to run their networks. I'm simply saying that leave the running of the networks to them... let them decide when, if they multi-home, if they choose to de-multi-home, etc. We all know we can lie our way around this... but people shouldn't have to... and if that is the only reason, then it is still a valid one. A rule that isn't enforced, or has any repercussions for going around, shouldn't even be there in the first place. If the only reason it remains is to annoy some small number of ethical people, it should be remediated. ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Thanks for that Guangliang. Thats really helped to clarify the position here. Another question. Whats the normal time lag between a member applying for an ASN (assuming that all the information is present and correct) and it being allocated? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? I'm trying to gauge if it really takes longer to apply for an ASN than it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session. Thanks Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A slight side tracking here - looking for some opinions. how much of the cruft on IRR system is there because organizations with allocated prefixes have to depend on their upstreams for the creation of their route objects, which then doesn't get removed when the relationship ends. - -gaurab -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlTtgaUACgkQSo7fU26F3X1qPgCgp64/H56nfdbrXfyc6Q42yOqV SE4AoMyXqwqjFYrfjLo7CTNywkTlAEGE =d+RP -END PGP SIGNATURE- * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I would think it would... why does it matter how you get to another peer? ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guangliang, can you clarify these questions for me. If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel, would that be considered multihoming ? - -gaurab On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guangliang, can you clarify these questions for me. If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel, would that be considered multihoming ? - -gaurab On 2/25/15 4:05 AM, Guangliang Pan wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I don't believe that we have had those conversations. I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome. YMMV. We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the other thread confirms beyond doubt.) Upon which
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I don't believe that we have had those conversations. I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome. YMMV. We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the other thread confirms beyond doubt.) Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the proposal to still require justified need rather than mere announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred. Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are undesirable. There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times you can't see the unintended consequences until you are already down the track of smaller simpler policy changes. I really don’t think that is a risk in this case. As we are in Japan I offer a haiku: A frog in water doesn’t feel it boil in time. Do not be that frog. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog) I wish I could be at the meeting, but, alas, I’m here in the US looking on from afar. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I don't believe that we have had those conversations. We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the other thread confirms beyond doubt.) There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times you can't see the unintended consequences until you are already down the track of smaller simpler policy changes. As we are in Japan I offer a haiku: A frog in water doesn’t feel it boil in time. Do not be that frog. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog) Dean * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely. If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country to just give up issuing visas. It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate job of checking policy compliance of member applications for resources. Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in the existing policies. Regards, Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Guangliang for the update, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3 months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS to be peer with in future? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. I do not support the proposal -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I don't believe that we have had those conversations. I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome. YMMV. We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 25 February 2015 at 17:06, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. I do not support the proposal I concur with Dean - I don't see a requirement for this proposal, given the clarification of existing policy which has been provided, and thus do not support the proposal. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
All, I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future (which I do agree) Currently they all have to commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I guess some religion takes that more seriously than others. Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say something on the lines of ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible for as ASN²? This would cover the use case without opening the floodgates. Thoughts? Raf On 25/2/15 2:33 pm, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely. If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country to just give up issuing visas. It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate job of checking policy compliance of member applications for resources. Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in the existing policies. Regards, Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Guangliang for the update, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3 months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS to be peer with in future? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it is to do with flexibility. I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenience of being able to add these things easily. Lets say I was a company with a /23 and upstream into Telstra Only. If I had my own ASN and was announcing to Telstra, then at any time I could add another ISP, IXP, direct peering without having to go apply for an ASN, reconfigure my network to bring the announcement in-house, etc. I also might want to maintain a single provider, but be able to migrate easily to another provider without having to rely on the providers to do the right thing while changing announcements between them. I think this policy has VERY valid applications for many smaller entities to be able to have an ASN without having to be multi-homed either initially, or maintain that multi-homing. As Randy used to say - Why do you have the right to tell me how to manage my network? If I want to be multi-homed, or change my mind and not be, it is none of your damn business. I think this policy change reflects the changing way for businesses to get online since APNIC has run out of IP's, and are often charging significant amounts of money - so people are going to APNIC directly - which they are entitled to do. And being flexible and being able to change their circumstances is a more common thing nowadays. If you want, suggest charging for ASN's... but don't tell networks how they should be connected at any time. Btw... I am happy for this to apply ONLY to ASN4 and not ASN2. ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely. If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country to just give up issuing visas. It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate job of checking policy compliance of member applications for resources. Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in the existing policies. Regards, Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Guangliang for the update, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3 months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS to be peer with in future? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Agreed... Aftabs use case is one of many... the others I just posted about. ...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 Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Raphael Ho raphael...@ap.equinix.com wrote: All, I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future (which I do agree) Currently they all have to commit fraud² in order to get an ASN, and I guess some religion takes that more seriously than others. Would we the proposal be acceptable if we reworded the proposal to say something on the lines of ³Eligible LIRs with APNIC Assigned Portable addresses are also eligible for as ASN²? This would cover the use case without opening the floodgates. Thoughts? Raf On 25/2/15 2:33 pm, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely. If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country to just give up issuing visas. It sounds like you are accusing the hostmasters of doing an inadequate job of checking policy compliance of member applications for resources. Perhaps this is something that you'd like to take up with them directly rather than proposing that we remove all the rules in the existing policies. Regards, Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Guangliang for the update, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3 months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS to be peer with in future? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 : Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here. If an organisation is connected to only one other organisation, there is no need for an ASN. If these two orgs want to use BGP, that's a private matter, and is what private ASNs are for - and there are now around 1 billion of those. If an organisation needs to connect to at least two other ASNs, then they qualify under the APNIC definition which Guanliang shared. philip -- I do not support the proposal -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Dean and All, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Best regards, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:02 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute “multihoming” in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid “multihoming” whereupon I had to resort to “a unique routing policy”. If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I’ve also encountered situations where this is considered “not multihomed” and to be a “unique routing policy”. I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it’s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Thanks Guangliang for the update, According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of multihomed is as below. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. So what if I only have one upstream provider and doesn't have a Public IX in place? What If I just whois any member from my country and provide AS numbers and contact details publicly available? Do you check back after 3 months that the AS you provided to the applicant is actually peering with the ones they mentioned in the application? Do you send email notification to those contacts provided in the application that XYZ has mentioned your AS to be peer with in future? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I¹m with Dean on both counts. My opinion is, if you are buying a single homed transit + peering, you are multihoming. However, if you are sub-allocated addresses from your upstream (non portable) + peering, you are doing something undesirable (in my personal opinion. Yours personal opinion may vary) I think if you have a portable address block, and have demonstrated need for an ASN (hint: just say peering), then you should be able to get one or more (hint: just say discontiguous network) - which is not very different from the current policy. On 25/2/15 5:02 am, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here. -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 , Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. This is not true. You can be single homed to a single upstream, but, have other peering relationships with other non-upstream ASNs which are also not down-stream. These relationships may not be sufficiently visible to convince APNIC that one is multihomed, even though technically it is a multihomed situation. I don't agree (Damn and we were getting on so well this year =) ). I would argue that the situation you describe above DOES constitute multihoming. I agree, but it may not necessarily constitute ³multihoming² in a manner that is recognized or accepted by the RIR. Clarification from APNIC staff on the exact behavior from APNIC could render this moot. However, I have past experience where RIRs have rejected peerings with related entities and/or private ASNs of third parties as not constituting valid ³multihoming² whereupon I had to resort to ³a unique routing policy². If an LIR were connected to an upstream ISP but also wanted to participate at an IXP I would consider them to be multihomed and covered under existing APNIC policy. What if they only connected to the IXP with a single connection? I¹ve also encountered situations where this is considered ³not multihomed² and to be a ³unique routing policy². I couldn't find the strict definition on the APNIC pages as to what the hostmasters considered multihoming to be, but if one of them can point us to it then it might help. Agreed. While I oppose that (and thus completely oppose the other proposal), as stated above, I think there are legitimate reasons to allow ASN issuance in some cases for organizations that may not meet the multi-homing requirement from an APNIC perspective. I really want to find out what those multi-homing requirements are. I suspect that they amount to BGP connections to two or more other ASNs In which case I think we can go back to agreeing. As long as it¹s not more specific than that (for example, two or more public ASNs or via distinct circuits, etc.). I think it is more a case that smaller and simpler policy proposals that seek to change a single aspect of policy are more likely to succeed or fail on their merits, where large complex omnibus proposals have a substantial history of failing on community misunderstanding or general avoidance of complexity. I can see your point, but taking a smaller simpler approach is only valid once you have agreed on the larger more strategic direction. I don't believe that we have had those conversations. I find that in general, the larger the group you are attempting to discuss strategy with, the smaller the chunks necessary for a useful outcome. YMMV. We are seeing small proposals purporting to talk about multihoming, but what they are in essence talking about is the much larger topic of the removal of demonstrated need (as Aftab's clarification in the other thread confirms beyond doubt.) Upon which clarification, you will notice that I switched to outright opposition to that policy. Frankly, you caught a subtlety in the language that I missed where I interpreted the proposal to still require justified need rather than mere announcement, but a careful re-read and the subsequent clarification of intent made it clear that I had erred. Further, note that I have always opposed this proposal as written, but offered as an alternative a much smaller change which I felt met the intent stated by the proposer without the radical consequences you and I both seem to agree are undesirable. There is danger in the death by a thousand cuts. Many times you can't see the unintended consequences until you are already down the track of
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this. Secondly, In considering this policy proposal in conjunction with prop-113, I am increasingly doubtful that there is anything for me to support here. I suspect what is happening here is that these proposals (113 and 114) are conjoined and rather than significantly lowering the bar with regard to allocation of IPv4 resources, they seek removal of the bar altogether. There are players within the community who will significantly benefit from a policy framework with a reduced multi-homing and demonstrated needs requirement, but those entities are not necessarily the end LIRs. What these two proposals seek to do is remove all barriers to obtaining IPv4 addresses and ASNs. One of the major problems here is that the authors seek to do this one 'cut' at a time. Almost in an attempt to avoid waking the tiger which is ARIN's requirement for needs based allocation, or having the APNIC community discussion around 'needs based' allocation for IPv4 resources. I would like to see us stop the subterfuge here. I would like to see both of these policies withdrawn and prop-116 Removal of all barriers to allocation of IPv4 and ASN resources put forward for debate. It is only in that way that the true ramifications/impacts of these smaller policies can be realised and discussed by the community. Forcing us to debate this clause by clause is a waste of community time and effort. I strongly oppose this policy as it is currently written. Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Colleagues, Regarding prop-114, discussion points are; 1. Whether completely taking away multi-home requirement or relaxing it by adding or unique routing policy as Owen proposed and ARIN doing. http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/02/msg00015.html http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2015/02/msg00044.html 2. Whether we will relax it for only 4-byte AS or 2-byte also. (Please note that we are running out 2-byte AS and it might speed it up) It is very appreciated if you will express your views for these points, and also show another points if you have. Regards, Masato 2015-02-07 19:25 GMT-06:00 Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com: Dean, Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support. ...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 Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it. On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement. Owen On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:07, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: hahahahahahahahahah ...to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. This made my morning. ...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 Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. Owen On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement. Owen On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:07, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: hahahahahahahahahah ...to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. This made my morning. ...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 On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. Owen On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo geo...@apnic.net wrote: Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy. Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is required. George K On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com'); Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com'); 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy.
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Dean, Pleas enlighten us on what version you would support. ...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 Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: There is a version of this that I would support, this isn't it. On Sunday, 8 February 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I do agree with Dean that this proposal in its current state is too radical, but I do support relaxing the requirements to multi home _or_ unique routing policy would be an improvement that addresses the issue raised in the problem statement. Owen On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:07, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: hahahahahahahahahah ...to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. This made my morning. ...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 Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. Owen On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo geo...@apnic.net wrote: Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy. Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is required. George K On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. Owen On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo geo...@apnic.net wrote: Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy. Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is required. George K On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com'); Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com'); 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change - In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the organization. 3. Situation in other regions - ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Rather than being a laughing matter this proposal seeks to hand out ASNs with no more justification than I want one. Can the authors explain why they feel radical change to existing policy is required? On Friday, 6 February 2015, Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com wrote: hahahahahahahahahah ...to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. This made my morning. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','o...@delong.com'); wrote: I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. Owen On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz'); wrote: So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo geo...@apnic.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@apnic.net'); wrote: Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy. Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is required. George K On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com'); Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com'); 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
You're right that it's just one data point. I'd encourage anyone with any further information to present it. At the moment I'm not seeing the requirement here. On Friday, 6 February 2015, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. Owen On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d...@internetnz.net.nz'); wrote: So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo geo...@apnic.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@apnic.net'); wrote: Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy. Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is required. George K On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com'); Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com'); 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change - In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the organization. 3. Situation in other regions - ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
hahahahahahahahahah ...to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. This made my morning. ...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 Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don't think your conclusion is supported by the statement from hostmaster... We don't know of anyone who hasn't reached out to us doesn't mean that nobody has reached out to them... It means that they are unaware. Asking the hostmasters about this issue in the way you did is akin to walking into a room full of people and saying Everyone who is not here, please raise your hand and concluding from the lack of raised hands that everyone is present. Owen On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: So it doesn't look like there is a problem here. The hostmasters are clear about the current policy, they explain it to people who contact them. Am I missing something? I'm not at all in favour of policy for policy sake. What's the problem statement here? On Thursday, 5 February 2015, George Kuo geo...@apnic.net wrote: Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy. Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is required. George K On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com'); Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com'); 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change - In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I support this proposal as well. Regards, Usman From: Job Snijders j...@instituut.net To: Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015, 7:19 Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:57:38AM -0600, Masato Yamanishi wrote: The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? I support this proposal. I appreciate its simplicity. Kind regards, Job * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Changing or removing the rules is not the way to address people submitting invalid or misleading information. Also I doubt that the hostmasters would be 'aware' of a case. If they were then the question would be why did they approve the resource application. On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dean, Thanks for raising the question. Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? Would like to add something here to the question, have you even been made aware of a situation where applicant provided wrong or fake multi-homing information just to meet the criteria? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? Very valid point. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hello Dean, We are not aware of any potential members who may have decided not to apply for IPv4 addresses or AS numbers based on how they have interpreted the policy wording. However, we explain the policy criteria to any potential members who do contact APNIC, and those who are not multihoming do not qualify for An IPv4 or ASN assignment based on the current policy. Currently, we don't keep a record of these unsuccessful requests, but we can begin to keep records in the future if this information is required. George K On 4/02/2015 5:13 am, Dean Pemberton wrote: Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com mailto:myama...@gmail.com wrote: Dear SIG members The proposal prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka, Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Regards, Masato --- prop-114-v001: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria --- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aftab.siddi...@gmail.com'); Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellegonetworks.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ske...@eintellegonetworks.com'); 1. Problem statement The current ASN assignment policy dictates two eligibility criteria and both should be fulfilled in order to get an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change - In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the organization. 3. Situation in other regions - ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --- An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: - Is planning to use it within next 6 months 5. Advantages / Disadvantages - Advantages: Removing the mandatory multi-homing requirement from the policy will make sure that organizations are not tempted to provide wrong information in order to fulfil the criteria of eligibility. Disadvantages: No disadvantage. 6. Impact on resource holders - No impact on existing resource holders. 7. References - -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) d...@internetnz.net.nz mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/3/15 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: so the little hack above should be - Is planning to use it within next 6 months ^ for multi-homing make it applicable only for 32 bits ASNs. (duck) - -gaurab -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlTRgkAACgkQSo7fU26F3X3BnACaA/cWeaPosz/0m4Oh9rCkS8Qc PHkAn1QaM551nYWJojMBVjNpeR/LyRET =Ad7X -END PGP SIGNATURE- * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Dean, Thanks for raising the question. Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following: Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been able to? Would like to add something here to the question, have you even been made aware of a situation where applicant provided wrong or fake multi-homing information just to meet the criteria? In other words has the current policy in the eyes of the host masters ever been a barrier to entry? Very valid point. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
I did actually think that... but Aftab rightly pointed out that there are people who still can use them, due to their own equipment or due to their upstreams. ...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 Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/3/15 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: so the little hack above should be - Is planning to use it within next 6 months ^ for multi-homing make it applicable only for 32 bits ASNs. (duck) - -gaurab -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlTRgkAACgkQSo7fU26F3X3BnACaA/cWeaPosz/0m4Oh9rCkS8Qc PHkAn1QaM551nYWJojMBVjNpeR/LyRET =Ad7X -END PGP SIGNATURE- * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Randy, i liked dean's question. is there actually a problem? have folk who really needed asns not been able to get one under current policy? Even, I liked Dean's question and would like to see what data hostmasters have on this. randy, thinking of reintroducing the no more policies policy proposal. I would love to see prop-108 again :) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
