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
