[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Policy Proposal (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

First, I'd like to say that I support the proposal.


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>
>  b) policy is quite (and was) soft is it possible to have hard policy? I
>  define soft policy as abstract or approximate and open to interpretation,
>  where as hard policy is exact and unambiguous. But hard policies seems
> nearly
>  impossible, at least Finnish law always fails my definition of hard
>  policy. And this policy also fails that.
>  Hard policy would be for example one which does not have _any_
> requirement on
>  requesting and getting ASN, however that would lead to a situation where
>  someone can request 32b of them, which could be made non-issue by having
> 1EUR
>  YRC, but billing changes is out-of-scope.
>  Right now, the policy stops hoarding with sentence 'cannot be satisfied
> with
>  an existing or private AS Number.', which is soft, as it's interpreted by
>  hostmaster, but it is in tradition of other RIPE policies.
>
>
I like the soft policy.

I think that if there are signs that someone starts hoarding, RIPE NCC
would notify the community about the issue and request that we consider a
policy for that, or perhaps someone outside the NCC would notice and create
their own policy proposal.

Until then, it is unnecessary to do anything in particular about it, except
think about it and be prepared for this eventuality.

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140501/2ad91e28/attachment.html>