[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:13:36PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:09:04PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > 2) Ask the NCC to maintain a public out-of-policy list of valid use
> > cases. Whenever a new applicant comes with potentialy valid use case
> > currently not on the list, APWG could be consulted and greenlight it
> > using a much more informal and fast/lightweight consensus determining
> > procedure than the PDP (e.g., sending a mail to APWG describing the use
> > case and asking if anyone sees any problems with it, if N weeks of
> > silence, it's good). If it ends up being shot down, the applicant can
> > always try his luck with the PDP instead.

This sounds like a lot of work. The complicated process would hurt
legitimate users, as it is safe to assume an intentional haorder will
just lie to the NCC to get the resources. "Let me see what is
whitelisted... Sure... i have l3vpns..  sure..."

> I like this :-) - of course I'd like to hear what RS would have to say
> about it ("we can do this" vs. "there are too many different cases to
> make sense out of this", etc.) - but the general idea is nicely
> lightweight and flexible...

A year ago Martin Hannigan remarked:

    "Why isn't "I'm connecting to a network and speaking BGP" with at
    least one peer good enough?"

I agree with that sentiment.

It might be interesting if we could shift the discussion away from "How
to justify to RIPE NCC how you run your network" to a slightly different
angle: "Helping the community prevent hoarding". Nothing more, nothing
less.

Kind regards,

Job