[address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management

Hi Sander,

I'm not very familiar with the history but if it is like you are describing
it then I agree with you.

Although we should maybe split this into a different thread because this is
getting a bit confusing.

-Cynthia

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023, 14:13 Sander Steffann, <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> At some point in the past we had a discussion about making it easier to
> request ASNs, basically removing the multihoming requirement. This working
> group at the time decided to not do this because it *might* cause someone
> to ask for an insane number of ASNs and overload the RIPE NCC. A recurring
> (or even a one-time) cost for ASNs would automatically solve this issue,
> because going insane would become financially unfeasible :)
>
> Now that the RIPE NCC’s membership has decided that they don’t care about
> this, I think it’s time to reopen this discussion on our side. There are
> many reasons someone might want to have an (extra) ASN: lab use, education
> (I’d love to set up BGP training course where students can actually
> announce a real IPv6 prefix to the world with a real ASN and see the
> results), internal use (while still needing a globally unique one), not YET
> being multi homed but going to in the future etc.
>
> I’d like to propose to remove the multi homing requirement from our ASN
> policy, as the main reason why we decided not to last time doesn’t seem to
> hold anymore.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
> your subscription options, please visit:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20230612/0854bf64/attachment.html>