[address-policy-wg] late conciliatory response to 2014-03

Hi Daniel,

> That one strikes me as well. I don't know how often people arguing about ASN stockpiling really apply for ASN's but my experience is that it takes quite a lot of explanation even to get a second ASN for the same entity.
> 
> But maybe I am missing something here and the "non multihoming" rule means the NCC will not check anything at all in the future and just give away ASN's to anyone asking for them, no matter how many?

That is the basic idea: ask for another ASN and you'll get one. Then some participants on this mailing list were worried that someone might request the whole pool. That caused a new version of the proposal to be written with some limits in them. Those limits were chosen in such a way that even the organisation with the largest number of ASNs could request 10x as much as they currently have and still fit in the policy. It is however a 'magic' number. That caused some objections because the policy is now not as clean and simple anymore.

So now this working group needs to decide in which direction to move: a very simple and clean policy that is 'ask and you will get', or a policy that places arbitrary limits just in case someone might try to abuse the policy. Or some other form of rate-limiting? 

If the RIPE NCC started charging for ASNs again then that would be a limiter and a reclaim mechanism. The policy could certainly remain a lot cleaner in that case. Or, just thinking out loud: we could allow the NCC to limit the number of resource requests they accept per week from the same organisation or something like that. With exponential back-off? ;)

As a working group we need to decide a few things:
- do we want to make it easy to get ASNs? (the answer seems to be "yes")
- do we want to place a limit?
- do we want a time-based or absolute limit?
- do we wait for the next RIPE NCC charging scheme to see if that solves our problems?

Cheers,
Sander Steffann
APWG co-chair