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

On 13/01/2015 17:23, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> 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.

Elvis, you probably know the documentation much better than I do, but the
formal requirement for multihoming has been in place since at least
RIPE-140, dating from 1996.  RIPE-140 refers to existing assignment
practices and from what I remember of before that date, there was an
informal expectation of multihoming for ASN assignment from the very early
days of the Internet, even if it wasn't formally documented.

As a community, we managed to arrive at a practical workaround, namely that
you can apply for an ASN if you have a plan to multihome and can state a
name for a potential peering partner.

We all quietly acknowledge that it might not match the spirit of the
policy, but it works and has worked for as long as the RIPE NCC has
existed.  It needs to work because often an organisation needs an ASN even
when they're not yet ready to multihome.

Again, let me be clear where I'm coming from:  if we are going to change a
policy which has been in existence for more than 19 years, let's change it
to what we want for the next 19, rather than put in place a temporary
stopgap with the aim of plugging a leak.  If this means being patient for
another couple of months until RIPE71, then that's fine by me.

> 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?  :)

Then you misread my email: I have no more information than anyone else
about how people might vote.

Nick