[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Dear Nick, community,

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 09:18:22PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> It invents a magic number - one thousand. Yes, I'm aware of the
> distant practical basis for this, but let's not pretend that in every
> other respect the number isn't pulled straight out of the air 

Some background: the 1000 number is based on multiplying the highest
amount of ASNs assigned to a single organisation by ten (100 * 10), to
ensure there is room for growth.

The previous version of the policy did not contain the '1000 ASNs
limitation'. To that proposal you responded you were going to need
"slightly less than 2^32. (ASNs)". Am I to understand you prefer the
previous version of the proposal, because it aligns better with your
needs? 

> It creates a policy requirement to invoke RPSL

This is simply not true, this proposal is not creating anything new in
that context. Current policy states:

    "The new unique routing policy should be defined in RPSL language,
    as used in the RIPE Database."

the proposal states:

    "The routing policy of an Autonomous System should be defined in
    RPSL in the RIPE Database."

Note the word /should/ in the proposed policy. I want to encourage
everyone to document the meaningful bits of their routing policy in an
accessible way, but as end-user you can also decide to put garbage (or
nothing) in the DB. Should the words 'in RPSL' be removed the sentence?
Any suggestions?

As an active contributor to the current ASN Assignment policy, can you
maybe shed some light on why the current policy invoked RPSL the way it
does?

> <snip>
> 
> The sensible approach to this is to relax the policy requirements for
> asn assignment - ...  - and then apply a small fee to help prevent
> egregious abuse. Note: not stop, because it is not possible to
> completely people abusing arbitrary rulesets without harming the
> common good.

So you are using a terrible amount of handwaving and overbreathing to
suggest that we refrain from ASN Assignment policy changes until the AGM
decides to start charging a yearly fee for ASNs again?

What if such a yaerly fee is never introduced?

> Look I'm sorry, but this policy draft is absurd and flies in the face
> of reality, common sense and practical application.  

What's absurd is that currently you cannot just get an ASN when you ask
for one.