* Job Snijders
Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, especially given the title of this policy proposal.
Indeed. Considering the title of the proposal, and the fact the entire proposed new policy document has 0 occurrences of the word "multihoming", I can't wrap my head around how the IA could end up claiming that the requirement for multihoming is not removed.
Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"?
Agreed. After all, the word used is "potential" - so it wouldn't be a certainty, but an eventuality. AIUI, in this case obtaining an ASN would be akin to obtaining insurance. Also I find it somewhat surprising that the NCC seems to require an exhaustive list of what all the valid uses of an ASN is. The NCC has, after all, for a very long time delegated IP addresses to folks that have a valid use for them - without there being any exhaustive list of valid technical justifications for IP addresses present in policy. In any case, the IA ends by mentioning the possibility of the NCC preparing a procedural document that lists the various justifications for ASNs that will be approved. I think this is a reasonable approach. The list could start out with containing 1) multihoming, 2) anything from RFC1930, and 3) any other example from 2014-03's supporting notes; and be amended as required based on light-weight consultation with the community/wg (as opposed to requiring full PDP cycles every time). Tore