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
