Dear Job,
Section C:
Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"?
This concept of "Potential Future Multihoming" appears in the Rationale, part "a. Arguments supporting the proposal", second bullet point: "A network might not be multihomed today, but might want to prepare its infrastructure so it can multihome at a moment's notice, or have some form of mobility in terms of suppliers." My understanding is, and I think this is how the RIPE NCC interpreted it as well, that the requester may simply state that their network is expected to become multi-homed in the future, and this would be a good reason (i.e. one that the RIPE NCC should accept) for receiving an ASN. If there is no time limit when the requester is expected to become multi-homed, and/or the RIPE NCC is not expected to check this and ask for the ASN to be returned if the network is not multi-homed by that date, then I feel this part of the proposed policy is equivalent to saying that you simply have to ask for an ASN and the RIPE NCC must assign you one. Am I wrong? If this is how the policy proposal has to be interpreted, I do not support it. Best regards, Janos
Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the proposal: truth & accuracy are most important.
Kind regards,
Job