This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri May 15 14:34:01 CEST 2015
Dear AP WG,
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:57:20PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> The Review Period for the proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for
> AS Number Assignments" has been extended until 19 May 2015.
So - we extended this to wait for the AGM decision on "charging for AS
numbers". The AGM decided, and the clear majority decide to not introduce
annual charges for AS numbers - my life would be easier otherwise, but
this is what was decided, so respect it and see how we can achive our
goals here :-)
Feedback for this proposal so far was, if I simplify a bit
- we want to take care not to exhaust 16bit-ASNs
- there is unlimited number of 32bit ASNs
(but there *also* was feedback about "N. from I. could go out and
register all 4 billion 32bit ASNs, and exhaust the system"... now what?)
- we might want a garbage collection / reclamation mechanism
- the current policy text is too complicate, arbitrary numbers are bad
but there *is* quite a bit of support for the generic idea of "loosen up
the rules for 32bit ASNs, as the multihoming requirement is often hard
or impossible to demonstrate or check".
So, what should we (or, more precise, the proposers) do to get there?
Nick, I'm actually looking at you since you threw the most sand into the
gears here... some specific suggestions how you'd tackle this would
be welcome.
(Technically, I see no other way than to change text and do another round
of IA/review phase with the feedback we've received until now - if, based
on the new background from AGM, everybody who has objected so far is now
accepting this at it stands to go forward - please say so!)
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150515/cc7de2c8/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]