I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but organization should share their future plan of multi-homing to get ASN.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria, > reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the > APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). > > This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy > Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list > for the final Comment Period. > > At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments > made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 40 still holds. The > Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to > allow further discussion. > > If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive > Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. > > - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net> > - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Sunday, 11 October 2015 > > > > Proposal details > ---------------- > > This is a proposal changes the criteria for AS number requests from > end-user organizations considering multihoming. > > Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and > links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 > > Regards > > Masato and Sumon > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-114-v003: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui > aftab.siddi...@gmail.com > > Skeeve Stevens > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > > The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and > that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The > policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and > clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, > this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. > > As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information > to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still > have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to > modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN > assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > ARIN: > It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN > > RIPE: > Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion > and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision) > Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > > LACNIC: > Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing > > AFRINIC: > It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if: > > - they are currently multi-homed, OR > > - have previous allocated provider independent address space by > APNIC, AND intend to multi-home in the future > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC > Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions > based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid > request. > > Disadvantages: > > It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain > ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s > in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with > ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have > any effect. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > > No impact on existing resource holders. > > > * 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 > > -- *Regards / Jahangir *
* 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
