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

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > 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, I think you are stressing this point too far. Dean has absolutely no right to tell you how you build

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)

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 S

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

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 mor

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. >>

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

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. Wh

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 experien

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

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 00:22, Dean Pemberton 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 desi

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

> On Feb 26, 2015, at 22:16 , Shen Zhi 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 sessio

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

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 01:43 , Izumi Okutani 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 hom

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

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

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" > 发送时间: 2015-02-28 05:33:59 (星期六) > 收件人: "Shen Zhi" > 抄送: "Mark Tinka" , sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN

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 wrote: > Owen, > > What do you mean by 'If it’s _THE_ track at that time'? > > Jessica Shen > > >

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 s

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

On 2/27/15 16:05 , Dean Pemberton wrote: 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. Don't allocated one if they don't want one. But if

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

All right, let's have a look at that first. Jessica Shen -原始邮件- 发件人:"Dean Pemberton" 发送时间:2015-02-28 06:40:11 (星期六) 收件人: "Jessica Shen" 抄送: "Owen DeLong" , "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" 主题: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

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

Nope - you almost had me, but now you've lost me again, well done. 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,

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 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 at

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 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 > wrote: > >> We have th

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

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

Excellent, thank you Sanjaya for that. ...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/s

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

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 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 fu

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 exten

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

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

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 an

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

Hello, [Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.] Regarding your sentence: "Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the same criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the secretariat to justify additional ASNs." I humbly request the draft policy

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

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

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

What he said... Mark. On 28/Feb/15 05:25, David Huberman wrote: > Hello, > > [Please pardon the top posting. I am on a mobile device.] > > Regarding your sentence: > > "Any subsequent allocations [of an AS number] would fall under the > same criteria, plus the extra burden of justification by the

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

Sorry, to clarify. There is already an existing process for subsequent ASN process which the secretariat follows (I think?). I am not intending on changing anything to do with that... just the initial ASN allocation. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Network

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear all, Thank you so much for your feedback on prop-112, and I'm sorry for not to reply soon. Again, main objective of prop-112 is to utilize reserved IPv6 address in 'legacy' block. Legacy blocks are: 2001:0200::/23, 2001:0c00::/23, 2001:0e00::/23 and 2001:4400::/23. Here is current usage in

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

>> On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:28, Mark Tinka wrote: >> >> 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-fulfil

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

On 28/Feb/15 08:07, David Farmer wrote: > If IPv6 PI allocations gets too liberal, the routing system as we know it > will implode long before we allocate 4.2 billion ASNs. Restricting the > number of ASNs in use in the routing system isn't really going to help that > much. The total number