[address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management

Hi WG,

At some point in the past we had a discussion about making it easier to request ASNs, basically removing the multihoming requirement. This working group at the time decided to not do this because it *might* cause someone to ask for an insane number of ASNs and overload the RIPE NCC. A recurring (or even a one-time) cost for ASNs would automatically solve this issue, because going insane would become financially unfeasible :)

Now that the RIPE NCC’s membership has decided that they don’t care about this, I think it’s time to reopen this discussion on our side. There are many reasons someone might want to have an (extra) ASN: lab use, education (I’d love to set up BGP training course where students can actually announce a real IPv6 prefix to the world with a real ASN and see the results), internal use (while still needing a globally unique one), not YET being multi homed but going to in the future etc.

I’d like to propose to remove the multi homing requirement from our ASN policy, as the main reason why we decided not to last time doesn’t seem to hold anymore.

Cheers,
Sander