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 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

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 wrote: > Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time. > > - Large organizations like banks and retail

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,

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 th

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

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 Intern

[sig-policy] 答复: [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

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 instroduct

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

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

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 bu

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

Hi, Just to mention that Izumi mentioned what is also largely requested and done at the AfriNIC region as well. I don't think there is any policy implication for member that peers with a different ASN other than the ones provided during application. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse

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

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 no

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 > su

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 mult

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

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 confir

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

On 2015/02/27 14:00, Aftab Siddiqui 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

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

Hi Aftab, 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 ma

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

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 Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handl

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

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 w

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

Hi Izumi, 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 Thanks, Guangliang = -Original Message- From: sig-policy-boun...@

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

Hi all, I agree with the suggested approach from the chair. Raphael's earlier post was really helpful in understanding the situation. Thank you Raphael. I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/26/15 9:40 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Owen, > > I don't want to discuss too much details since I'm acting chair, > but I'm afraid that "unique routing policy" is vague and it may > qualify some usecases that private AS may also work. Can't ag

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

Understood your point. Thx. Regards, Masato Yamanishi 2015-02-26 18:19 GMT-06:00 Owen DeLong : > I’m not opposed to qualifying some cases where private AS may also work, > because in those cases, frankly, I think most organizations will either use > a private AS rather than go to the trouble of

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

I’m not opposed to qualifying some cases where private AS may also work, because in those cases, frankly, I think most organizations will either use a private AS rather than go to the trouble of applying, or, they may have a good reason (future plans, etc.) for wanting to get a public AS and not

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 ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve t

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

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

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

Owen, I don't want to discuss too much details since I'm acting chair, but I'm afraid that "unique routing policy" is vague and it may qualify some usecases that private AS may also work. So, what is the definition or understanding for "unique routing policy" in ARIN? Masato Yamanishi Feb 26, 2

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

Yes, I was well aware of that. Is there anything you believe to be incorrect in my comments as a result? Otherwise, I’m not sure what you are getting at. I believe a unique routing policy or multiple peers is sufficient justification. Absent that, I believe that an entity which qualifies for PI

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, I

Re: [sig-policy] Requirements for Subsequent ASN Requests

Owen and Usman, In following comments, did you consider we are discussing "public" AS numbers? Since we are discussing "public" AS, we should have some kind of justifications why it should be globally unique. Regards, Masato 2015-02-25 18:39 GMT-06:00 Owen DeLong : > Usman, since an AS is defi

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.

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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, > wh