[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement

Hi Job,

Policy can't set a price or affect the cost to a resource, as that is decided by the membership in the AGM.  I would rather have the NCC monitor the situation and report on it during the NCC services update on the RIPE meetings as they are also doing on the PI IPv6 without multihoming.  If the situation would show abusive behaviour from people, the need is there to associate a cost per AS object and you would get it much easier through the AGM ... 

I would not recommend writing a policy that would only be implemented after a cost decision. 

And by writing that the Currently policy must stay as is, also doesn't leave an option to make other adjustments.. May I suggest the policy change that was discussed to be able to transfer an ASn. 

Regards,
Erik Bais 


Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad

> Op 16 aug. 2014 om 16:34 heeft Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 03:50:56PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>> I personally would want to see YRC implemented, 1EUR/year/resource,
>>> 4294967296 EUR annual revenue will make it possible to finance
>>> sufficient long AS number for Nick's use cases.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, APWG has no formal say in this, as everything related
>> to money is for the members to decide, and it seems sufficient LIRs
>> wanted "no extra costs for AS numbers!" to lobby for the removal 
>> from the charging scheme... (we had "50 EUR per AS/year" in it)
>> 
>> One would need to personally propose this to the board so they can include 
>> it in the new charging scheme drafts, *and* get enough members to actually
>> vote for it...
> 
> As author I wholeheartedly agree with the two main concerns Nick raises,
> we described this concern in the Rationale section B.
> 
> Going forward I see two possible paths, and would appreciate feedback on
> either.
> 
> 1) We add a clause to the policy that the policy only takes effect if
> either in 2014 or 2015, a yearly recurring cost is associated with AS
> Number assigments. Until then RIPE-525 remains in effect as is.
> 
> 2) We limited the number of AS Number assignments per LIR to one
> thousand. This currently values an AS Number assignment at roughly 2
> euros, which in my opinion would be a fine number. This approach would
> have both an abuse-dampening and a garbage collection effect.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
>