[address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nikolas Pediaditis
npediaditi at ripe.net
Tue May 7 17:08:12 CEST 2019
Dear Aled, Gert, all, Please allow me to provide some clarification. I can confirm that the RIPE NCC does take future deployments into account and AS Numbers can be assigned in advance. Regarding this specific case, there was a miscommunication that we have now clarified directly in the request (which is still ongoing). Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis Assistant Manager Registration Services & Policy Development RIPE NCC > On 7 May 2019, at 14:30, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 01:18:14PM +0100, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg wrote: >> I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and >> resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS >> guidelines RIPE-679, specifically: >> >> *A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.* >> >> The application for an AS number has been delayed because the NCC analyst >> working on the ticket is claiming the ISP has to be *already multihomed* >> before an AS can be issued. >> >> This interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. Surely the intention *to >> become multihomed* should be the requirement for obtaining an AS number? > > Speaking as WG participant and long time LIR contact, this sounds funny > indeed. And none of my AS requests so far have been for networks that > were *already* multihomed (because, well, how can you be without an > AS number...). > > >> I don't even see how you can be properly multihomed if you don't have an AS >> number. Are we supposed to implement some kind of NAT multihoming first? >> >> Can we look to change the wording in RIPE-679 to make this clear? > > Now, speaking as WG chair, we can just toss the ball at Marco/Andrea > from the NCC RS department and ask them to comment on this, and whether > this is an issue of policy wording, misunderstanding, or possibly > miscommunication (language barriers...). > > We can also spend some time at the next meeting to discuss this in > the WG meeting - that's what our time is for, have face to face chats > to clarify intentions, interpretations, and possibly ways forward... > > Gert Doering > -- multi-hatted individual > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer > 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2640 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190507/e4623961/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]