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

* Job Snijders

> Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some,
> especially given the title of this policy proposal.

Indeed. Considering the title of the proposal, and the fact the entire
proposed new policy document has 0 occurrences of the word
"multihoming", I can't wrap my head around how the IA could end up
claiming that the requirement for multihoming is not removed.

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

Agreed. After all, the word used is "potential" - so it wouldn't be a
certainty, but an eventuality. AIUI, in this case obtaining an ASN would
be akin to obtaining insurance.

Also I find it somewhat surprising that the NCC seems to require an
exhaustive list of what all the valid uses of an ASN is. The NCC has,
after all, for a very long time delegated IP addresses to folks that
have a valid use for them - without there being any exhaustive list of
valid technical justifications for IP addresses present in policy.

In any case, the IA ends by mentioning the possibility of the NCC
preparing a procedural document that lists the various justifications
for ASNs that will be approved. I think this is a reasonable approach.
The list could start out with containing 1) multihoming, 2) anything
from RFC1930, and 3) any other example from 2014-03's supporting notes;
and be amended as required based on light-weight consultation with the
community/wg (as opposed to requiring full PDP cycles every time).

Tore