----------------------------------------------------------- prop-114-v002: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria ----------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision) Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed OR - meet one of the other criteria in the guidelines managed by the APNIC Secretariat 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid request. Disadvantages: It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have any effect. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No impact on existing resource holders. --------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Draft Guidelines (to be created as a numbered document by APNIC) --------------------------------------------------------- The below are example of guidelines that could be considered for alternate needs justification. The intention to multi-home in the future The applicant is participating in elastic fabrics where the requirements to connect to ‘on demand’ service providers may require ASN/BGP connectivity Regional limitation of obtaining multi-homing connectivity in the ‘immediate’ term, but want to design their networks for this capability Have a single unique routing policy different to their upstream, but yet are single-homed