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

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 06:23:09PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> 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.

I think the wording "dangerous precedent" is a bit too strong here - we
did that in the past (stall a proposal until something else was decided),
and as long as the proposer and WG chair agree on the course, there is
nothing wrong here...  after all, the proposer can withdraw at any
time as well :) .

[..]
> 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?

One could argue indeed that if you have only a single BGP upstream, an AS
number is not strictly needed.  But of course this is one of the reasons
the proposers had to bring this up - private ASNs or announcing from the
upstream's ASN will not always get the job done either.

> 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?  :)

Well, Nick and I brought it up at the last AGM, and we made sure the 
board was awake and listening :-) - so we'll see what happens at the
next AGM.

[..]
> 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.

Actually we *do* try to make policy in a way that we don't have to
scramble to fix the ways it can be abused right afterwards :-)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150113/c59269cb/attachment.sig>