[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Very good input, thank you Wilfried!

Does anyone else have any suggestions or objections to:

"A new AS number is only assigned when the network architecture and/or project has a need that cannot be satisfied by an existing AS number."

If there are no objections to this part of the text, that gives the WG a good foundation to build on in Bucharest, in my opinion.

David

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilfried Woeber [mailto:Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:00 AM
> To: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn
> (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
> 
> David Huberman wrote:
> 
> > Thank you, ytti.
> >
> > So let's start with the basics.  Does the following text allow the NCC to meet
> the needs of network operators today?
> >
> > "A new AS number is only assigned when the network architecture
> 
> I would be more edxplicit and more flexible here, by adding e.g.
> 
> or project
> 
> > has a need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS number."
> 
> Looking at SDN stuff and pilot projects or testbeds, or even trainings or
> workshops, I can see the need to interconnect such projects with the 'real'
> net and to use globally unique AS numbers.
> 
> I do understanf that "network architecture" can be interpreted as a rather
> wide and flexible term, but we should try to provide as good guidance as we
> can to support the evaluation of requests by the IPRAs.
> 
> Wilfried
> 
> > There will be more policy text. But again, let's start with -- and agree on --
> the basics.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > David
> >
> > David R Huberman
> > Principal, Global IP Addressing
> > Microsoft Corporation