[address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Huberman
David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Tue Aug 11 14:13:29 CEST 2015
> I just read 6.3, 9.3 and 9.4. I don't see which of these I would be in violation of > if I went to RIPE NCC and asked for 10k ASNs "because I need them" under > the proposed new policy of just recording reason. Correct! Which is why I don't think I like the new policy. Existing ASN policy suffices if we simply strike one sentence about multi-homing (and then ask the NCC to generally automate the implementation). Existing ASN policy references the criteria in RFC1930 as justification for an ASN, and an audit can rely on the text to clear out any stupidity. Yes?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]