[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

On 12 November 2015 at 09:53, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Just to play the devil's advocate, who is to evaluate and understand these
> "cannot be satisfied" reasons?  RIPE IPRAs are typically not BGP experts.
>
> Not saying that this is not a good starting point, but we always need to
> keep in mind that there are good people at the NCC who need to evaluate
> these requests, and they might not all have the in-depth understanding
> of technology...

You should be saying this. This is what we got from RIPE NCC trying to
pull it off. And I agree with them. If hostmasters need to decide, we
need to tell them what are the rules. i.e. w need to iterate
acceptable uses, which I don't want. I don't expect to know all use
cases.

I say this, clearly arrogantly, I think correct approach is:

a) 32b ASN, question asked in form, but not evaluated (just to educate
ourselves, why do people think they need ASNs) large limit per
organisation, like 1000 ASN per organisation (LIR fees are low enough
to justify buying another LIR if you need more ASN).
b) 16b ASN, must not be stub network, must transit someone (if we can
verify multihoming today, we can verify transiting tomorrow)





-- 
  ++ytti