[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hannigan, Martin
marty at akamai.com
Sat Aug 16 23:08:08 CEST 2014
With "the cloud" allowing for effective single homing these days, do we really need to codify any sort of multi-homing requirement? I also don't see the utility of a list of reasons that someone can be assigned an ASN. Isn't "I'm connecting to a network and speaking bgp" good enough. Best, -M< On Aug 16, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > Based on the feedback from the working group we have developed a > new iteration of the proposal. > > Concerns addressed: > > - remove private AS Number reference (Fredy Kuenzler, 1 May 2014; Alex > le Heux, offlist; Erik Bais, offlist) > - differentiate between 16 and 32 bit ASN (Nick Hilliard, 1 May 2014; > Aleksi Suhonen, 14 August 2014; RIPE NCC Impact analysis section B > "Autonomous System Number (ASN) Consumption") > - Specify timeline when multihoming is required (Janos Zsako, 11 Jul 2014 > > What has not been addressed is the creation of an exhaustive list of > acceptable reasons to request an ASN. The authors do not know how to > update (without full PDP process) the list when new technologies or > methodologies arise. Rather, the authors believe that RIPE NCC is > responsible for maintaining an accurate registry than evaluate network > designs. In a years time the RIPE NCC could publish an aggregated report > on the recorded needs, possibly to inspire the community to reconsider > this policy. > > ----------------- replaces section 2.0 from RIPE-525 ----------------- > 2.0 Assignment Criteria > > A new AS Number should only be assigned when the End User expresses a need > that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS Number. RIPE NCC will record, > but not evaluate this need. > > When requesting a 16 bit AS Number, the network must be multihomed using > the assigned AS Number within 6 months. A 32 bit AS Number is exempt from > the multihoming requirement. > > When requesting an AS Number, the routing policy of the Autonomous System > must be provided. The new unique routing policy should be defined in RPSL > language, as used in the RIPE Database. > > The RIPE NCC will assign the AS Number directly to the End User upon a > request properly submitted to the RIPE NCC either directly or through a > sponsoring LIR. AS Number assignments are subject to the policies described > in the RIPE Document “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent > Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Kind regards, > > Job & Ytti > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140816/28e9e1e0/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]