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

Dear Job,

> Section C:
>
> Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a
> time period allowed for multihoming"?

This concept of "Potential Future Multihoming" appears in the Rationale,
part "a. Arguments supporting the proposal", second bullet point:
"A network might not be multihomed today, but might want to prepare its
  infrastructure so it can multihome at a moment's notice, or have some
  form of mobility in terms of suppliers."

My understanding is, and I think this is how the RIPE NCC interpreted it as
well, that the requester may simply state that their network is expected to
become multi-homed in the future, and this would be a good reason (i.e. one
that the RIPE NCC should accept) for receiving an ASN.

If there is no time limit when the requester is expected to become multi-homed,
and/or the RIPE NCC is not expected to check this and ask for the ASN to be
returned if the network is not multi-homed by that date, then I feel this
part of the proposed policy is equivalent to saying that you simply have to
ask for an ASN and the RIPE NCC must assign you one.

Am I wrong?

If this is how the policy proposal has to be interpreted, I do not support it.

Best regards,
Janos

> Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is
> extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would
> not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying
> on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the
> proposal: truth & accuracy are most important.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>