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
