<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
Aled,
<div>You could come up with a policy proposal to change the wording. With that’s said I wouldn’t say this is required. This is a common sense issue. Naturally if you can prove you’re multihoming the future network, so you have two ASNa that will peer with $NEWAS
and they are happy to confirm it, I wouldn’t see a reason for this to be an issue, you might want to escalate it to within the NCC so the manager of said analyst could look into it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you currently have only one peer and no solid plans to immediately turn up the other one for the new AS, so it is multihomed, I’d say the analyst is right in causing a fuss about it - ASNs are allocated for multihoming.<br>
<div><br>
<div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">
<div><font style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-size: 13pt;">With Kind Regards,</font><font style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-size: 13pt;"> </font></div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font>Dominik Nowacki</font><font> </font><font><br>
</font><font> </font><font><br>
Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: </font><a href="tel:08750969"><u>08750969</u></a><font>. Registered office: </font><a href=""><u>88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS</u></a><font>. Please
note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe
you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify </font><a href="mailto:abuse@clouvider.net"><u>abuse@clouvider.net</u></a><font> of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail
by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any
of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.</font></span><font><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On 7 May 2019, at 13:19, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"times new roman",serif;font-size:14.3px">A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.</i><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>The application for an AS number has been delayed because the NCC analyst working on the ticket is claiming the ISP has to be
<u>already multihomed</u> before an AS can be issued.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. Surely the intention <u>to become multihomed</u> should be the requirement for obtaining an AS number?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can we look to change the wording in RIPE-679 to make this clear?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Aled</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>