> On Feb 21, 2019, at 22:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> > wrote: > > Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the inputs, > > If we keep “it holds previously-allocated provider independent address > space”, then it means an organization, for example, deploying only IPv6, will > not be able to get an ASN.
Why can’t they get previously-allocated IPv6 Provider Independent space? > Or even an organization willing to get IPv4, can’t get it from APNIC. Should > them then wait for available IPv4 space and not have their own ASN meanwhile? If they don’t have address space to advertise, what, exactly, are they going to use the AS Number for in the mean time? I’m not opposed to deleting the phrase, but I am truly curious if you have an actual use case where removing it is harmful. > Or should they “promise” “I will multihome” and actually never do it? (there > is no a concrete time term defined in the policy). Ideally, no. > Or going to the extreme. Should the organization get IPv4 PI, but actually > not use it? This part still doesn’t make sense to me. The phrase mentioned does not specify IPv4, yet you seem to be assuming that is a requirement. Am I missing something? > Or should the organization request IPv6 PI today and tomorrow an ASN ? It is > artificial! Previously doesn’t necessarily mean separation by days. I think that the RIR staff can be trusted to accept applications contemporaneously and issue the addresses first, followed by he ASN, thus meeting the requirement in the policy. If you have a better way to address the issue they are bringing up, then propose that and let’s discuss it as a community. As I understand their message, the concern is issuing ASNs that have no actual use/need. I don’t think anyone is trying to put up artificial barriers to entry, but there is a desire to ensure that ASN acquisition doesn’t become some form of network fashion statement. > If we really want to ensure that those organizations multihome, we really > need to fix in how much time, and that was already changed in proposal 114. I > think this proposal improves that, going to the point where probably prop-114 > wanted to be (but sometimes you need to go step by step …). I seem to recall Skeeve put forth a proposal to eliminate the multihoming requirement some years back because it was becoming problematic in a number of situations where peering was desirable, but multihoming couldn’t necessarily be achieved (or at least had a longer than permitted time frame). At the time, I had suggested the use of “Multihomed or otherwise demonstrate a unique routing policy.” which actually pretty well covers any situation in which you would need an ASN. > In general, I don’t think restricting non-scarce resources as ASN is a good > thing, and if that happens APNIC should report it back to the community and > then we may consider it back. Having trouble parsing this sentence. If restriction of the resources occurs, it will be through policy, so I’m not sure what APNIC would need to report back to the community. > Current text is artificial in the sense that already prop-114 expressed. > People can just lie “I will …”. People can commit fraud in a number of ways in a variety of circumstances. I don’t think that the answer in most situations is to permit all the benefits by removing the rules to make it impossible to commit fraud (or at least pointless). It’s sort of like saying “Everyone on this freeway is always doing 200Kph, therefore we should raise the speed limit to 200Kph.” If someone obtains resources from a falsified application, then they are committing fraud and I’m sure the APNIC legal team is quite capable of addressing that situation should sufficient evidence come to light. Owen > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki > <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> > Fecha: viernes, 22 de febrero de 2019, 12:30 > Para: Policy SIG <sig-pol...@apnic.net> > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team. > > I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-128, > based on a meeting we organized on 12th Feb to discuss these proposals. > > Substantial support expressed, subject to not deleting the > "it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space" > described in the current policy text. > > * In this proposal, "it holds previously-allocated provider independent > address space" is erased. it should keep it in order to prevent unnecessary > application of AS number. > > * In the case of IPv6, the NAT disappears and the global address is assigned > to all device in the organization. If each organization uses a PI address > that is not locked in to a upper provider, there is a great merit that > there is no need to procure the second transit. > > *There are areas where have only one transit as pointed out by the proposer. > This proposal has the effect that policy conforms to the actual situation > as a result. > > > Best Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > JPOPF-ST > > 2019年1月22日(火) 9:14 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc > <mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>>: >> Dear SIG members, >> >> The proposal "prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN" has been >> sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 47 in >> Daejeon, South Korea on Wednesday, 27 February 2019. >> >> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list >> before the meeting. >> >> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an >> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to >> express your views on the proposal: >> >> · Do you support or oppose this proposal? >> · Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the >> community about your situation. >> · Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? >> · Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >> · What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? >> Information about this proposal is available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-128 >> <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-128> >> Regards >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN >> >> Proposers: Jordi Palet Martínez >> jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com <mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com> >> 1. Problem Statement >> >> When the ASN assignment policy was originally designed, the reliability >> of networks was not so good as today. So, at that time, it was making >> sense to make sure that and ASN holder is multihomed. >> >> However, today this is not necessarily a reasonable requirement, and >> even in some cases, some networks may require an ASN and not willing >> to be multihomed (because the cost, or remote locations that have only >> a single upstream, etc.), and their SLA requirements don’t need that >> redundancy. >> >> The deployment of IPv6 also increase the need for organizations which >> are not ISPs, to obtain IPv6 PI in order to have stable addresses, >> and in that situation, ideally, they should announce their PI space >> with their own ASN. In most cases, they don’t have to be multihomed. >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> >> To ensure that organizations which have their own routing policy and >> the need to interconnect with other organizations, can do it. >> >> Interconnect is used here with the commonly understood meaning of >> establishing a connection between two (administratively) separate >> networks. >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> >> ARIN and LACNIC don’t require multihoming. RIPE requires it. AfriNIC has >> a policy equivalent to APNIC, but I’m submitting a proposal similar to >> this one to change it as well as in the case of RIPE. >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> >> Current Policy text >> >> 12.1. Evaluation of eligibility >> >> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if: >> - it is currently multihomed, or >> - it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space and >> intends to multihome in the future. >> >> An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will >> meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably >> short time thereafter). >> >> Requests for ASNs under these criteria will be evaluated using the >> guidelines described in RFC1930 'Guidelines for the creation, selection >> and registration of an Autonomous System' (AS). >> >> Proposed text >> >> 12.1. Evaluation of eligibility >> >> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if: >> - it is multihomed or >> - has the need to interconnect with other AS. >> >> An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will >> meet any >> of the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably >> short time thereafter). >> >> Requests for ASNs under these criteria will be evaluated using the >> guidelines described in RFC1930 'Guidelines for the creation, selection >> and registration of >> an Autonomous System' (AS). >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> >> Advantages: >> Fulfilling the objectives above indicated. >> >> Disadvantages: >> None foreseen. >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> >> None. >> >> 7. References >> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five >> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five> >> https://www.lacnic.net/683/2/lacnic/ <https://www.lacnic.net/683/2/lacnic/> >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679 >> <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/> > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
