[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

On 2015 Nov 12 (Thu) at 18:13:56 +0200 (+0200), Saku Ytti wrote:
: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)
:

Thinking out loud: We could also apply the "last /8 policy" to this.
After it goes into effect, each LIR can request one and only one 16b ASN.
32b ASNs are allocated as normal (with the question asked, but not
evalutated).

-- 
Maintainer's Motto:
	If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.