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)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE 69 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Tue Jan 13 20:03:23 CET 2015
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 01:10:41PM +0100, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote: >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. Another possibility would be that n ASN can be assigned to an Organisation without proving any need and any further assignments have to prove need. How much n should be is open to debate of course. This should be more flexible than a fixed limit (who knows, maybe there's an operator that needs >1000 ASN), it also addresses the possibility of the AGM de-fanging a "charging" implementation without the need to go back and make a new policy. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE 69 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]