This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais - A2B Internet
ebais at a2b-internet.com
Thu Dec 25 13:10:41 CET 2014
Hi, I would like to add to the discussion first that I support the idea of the proposal. There has been some discussions by some in the community that there should be some kind of stop mechanism. Both on the Ap-wg ML and during the meeting in London. The discussion itself currently doesn't go over if an AS should be multihomed but about how do we stop abusers that want to demonstrate the need for 2^32 AS numbers ... How scary that might be .. There are other ways to screw things up ... This discussion should be finished by agreeing that there should be stop somewhere ... There has been 2 suggestions to this scary (automation) AS request that Nick might use when the policy comes into place ... Pay per AS or limit the number of AS'n per organisation. This while nothing currently suggests that Nick or someone else actually wants to request 2^32 AS's ... There is always the option to fix this within 6 months via the AGM with a charge per AS if the RIPE NCC has all AS numbers handed out to a scary evil org based on an island.. And if evil corp wants to keep the requested AS numbers when the AGM puts a €100 charge per AS, we will see at that point I think.. The intention of the prevention of the abuse is clear .. The policy won't get any better by having the authors go back and redo the draft (again) to the original because there is no nice solution for this 'possible' abuse .. So, on the intention of the policy: clear support. On the implementation: 1000 AS numbers ( as discussed in London) is a good enough number for the majority of the community. It is the cleanest way to implement this in the policy, nope sorry .. But that was also not suggested as such by the authors. The possible loophole came from the community and when they plugged it, the comment is that the policy text isn't clean enough ? I support the intention of the policy and I have peace with this version as it was the result of a good discusssion in London. Merry x-mas y'all, Erik Bais Send from my sofa with a glass of wine @ hand.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]