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...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani Sent: Friday, 27 February 2015 2:48 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: 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 > meet the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible > since they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the > future (which I do agree) I sympathize with this too. I can see cases where an applicant plans to be multihomed but not multi-homed at the time of the application. 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 not a must they are physically multihomed at the time of submitting a request In case of JPNIC, it is b. - We approve the ASN assignments if an applicant can demonstrate the *plan* to be multihomed within three months. I wonder taking approach b (accept a plan to be multihomed) addresses the problem described by Raphael (and Aftab) ? Regards, Izumi On 2015/02/27 7:03, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > 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 text? > >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> --------------------------- >> >> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: >> - Is planning to use it within next 6 months > > Masato Yamanishi > > > Feb 25, 2015 6:03 PM、Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> のメッセージ: > >> Dean, >> >> What you are saying is your rose coloured view of this. >> >> "You say they can get an ASN anytime they need one for operation purposes". >> I am saying that the case exists that operators will want to do this - >> WITHOUT the requirement for being multi-homed. >> >> The requirement for being multi-homed, 'as written' causes members to either >> lie to provide false information or find a way around the restriction (using >> HE or someone else) to choose how they wish to manage their network. >> >> You choosing to ignore this use case or situation doesn't make it go away >> because you don't understand why they would want to manage their network in >> that way. >> >> >> >> >> ...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 >> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >> >> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >> >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm asking that the policy reflect an operators choice to decide how they >>>> manage their networks should they choose to do it that way. >>> >>> I believe we've entered the point of diminishing returns here. >>> >>> It has been shown multiple times in this thread that there is no barrier to >>> getting an ASN if one is required under the current policy. This fact has >>> been supported by the current hostmasters. Operators currently have the >>> freedom to choose how to manage their networks, they can choose to get an >>> ASN anytime they need one for operational purposes. >>> >>> There is no change in policy required. >>> >>> I strongly oppose this policy as written. >> >> * 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 > * 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