[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Hi Nick,

On 13/01/15 16:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 13/01/2015 14:46, Gert Doering wrote:
>> So your suggestion would be to stall this proposal until we know what
>> comes out of the next AGM, and then see if we need the clause in
>> question at all, anymore?
> yes, that was my suggestion.  The current configuration is stable, so there
> are no pressing operational reasons to change things in a hurry.  If we're
> going to change, we need to do that's best for N years down the road, not
> what's best for a couple of months during 2015.
I do not think it is a good idea to stall a policy proposal in order to 
see if the Board/AGM decides to take into consideration or ignore in the 
future your presentation/proposal from the previous AGM.
I think your suggestion sets a very dangerous precedent where a policy 
proposal would be stalled pending a decision that may or not be taken at 
the next AGM.

Regarding the current configuration, well.. it requires the requester of 
the ASN to come up with a reason that can not be verified by the RIPE 
NCC and with a predicted set of peers that may or not peer with the 
assigned ASN.
For example, see the e-mail sent to the members-discuss mailing list 
yesterday by Shahin Gharghi; the current policy requires the requester 
to list the two ASNs they will peer with, what if some companies can not 
peer with two ASNs because of local regulations. Do you think that 
company should not receive the ASN they need?

Also, from your e-mail I understand that you are sure the AGM will vote 
within 'a couple of months' to charge for ASNs. Do you know something 
that I don't?  :)
>> What if the AGM decides to bring back a yearly recurring charge for
>> ASNs, we loosen up our policy, the AGM decides to remove the charge once
>> again,
> from previous email:
>
>>> As a more general issue, we need to accept as a community that there
>>> is a crossover between RIPE Community policy and RIPE NCC membership
>>> policy, and that this is one of those intersections.
> Both the RIPE NCC membership and the AP working group tend to end up with
> reasonable policies.  I'm pretty confident that this isn't going to change
> any time soon.
It has already changed from a year to the other and that is why I did 
not like the proposal you made at the previous AGM. We need to have a 
charging scheme that is predictable and will not change from a year to 
the other.

I think that if this policy proposal becomes policy and too many 
companies start requesting 1000 ASNs, the AGM can react and start 
charging (either from the first, the second or the 100th ASN) based on 
numbers that the RIPE NCC will provide. I do not like the idea that a 
policy proposal can be stalled because someone can imagine a way the 
proposal/policy could be abused. If it does get abused, we react on that 
and not on predictions.
> Nick
>
>
Regards,
Elvis


-- 
<http://v4escrow.net> 	


  Elvis Daniel Velea


    Chief Executive Officer

Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain 
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150113/45b99293/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150113/45b99293/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11971 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150113/45b99293/attachment-0001.png>