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

> What about the option 2, to limit the amount of AS assignments per
> LIR to 1000? As far as I understand option would fall within APWG's
> mandate and address the raised concerns.

So I need 2 lir's to request 2000 ASn's ? And 3 LIR's for 3000 ASn's ? Not that I want that many, but I'm thinking that the number might be a bit too big. How many ASn's do you expect is regular use within an LIR ... I know personally 1 company that hold 99 AS numbers ( legacy ) and they actual use is probably less than 30 active AS nr's .. They received it from IANA back in the days in order to hand them out to customers ... They might not be the only one ... 

Yes doing a max number per LIR would be within the APwg mandate, but let's keep things practical ... 

And what if you would register an AS within a LIR as an end-user assign AS, would that could ? Or only the LIR infra structure AS numbers ? 

You may want to ask Andrea as he might know what the current number is ( max) hold within an LIR ( not including Legacy assigned AS numbers) ... Personally I don't think it will be a lot that have more 5 AS'n in their LIR ( especially for their own Infra) .. There might be some that have a list of AS's requested for end-users. I know I have ... 
But if a customer doesn't require an AS number, why would one request an AS number if the customer doesn't understand what BGP is or if they don't intend to run BGP ? 

Which might actually be the better question in this discussion to ask instead of asking if you are going to multihome ... Are you going to run BGP ? And if you are, have you considered a private AS to use instead of a unique AS number .. Which basically covers everything that the NCC should know ... Or am I missing something ? 

Regards,
Erik Bais

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad

> Op 16 aug. 2014 om 17:46 heeft Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
>> 
>> Policy can't set a price or affect the cost to a resource, as that is
>> decided by the membership in the AGM.
> 
> Yes I know, hence my presenting of these two paths forward.
> 
>> 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..
> 
> Noted.
> 
>> May I suggest the policy change that was discussed to be able to
>> transfer an ASn.
> 
> Do you have an URL?
> 
> What about the option 2, to limit the amount of AS assignments per
> LIR to 1000? As far as I understand option would fall within APWG's
> mandate and address the raised concerns.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job