This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Aled Morris
aled.w.morris at googlemail.com
Tue May 7 14:18:14 CEST 2019
Hi all I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS guidelines RIPE-679, specifically: *A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.* The application for an AS number has been delayed because the NCC analyst working on the ticket is claiming the ISP has to be *already multihomed* before an AS can be issued. This interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. Surely the intention *to become multihomed* should be the requirement for obtaining an AS number? I don't even see how you can be properly multihomed if you don't have an AS number. Are we supposed to implement some kind of NAT multihoming first? Can we look to change the wording in RIPE-679 to make this clear? Aled -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190507/8aadc9de/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]