Dear all, Thank you Marco for taking the time to review this policy proposal. Much appreciated. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03
and the draft document at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 11 August 2014.
Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, especially given the title of this policy proposal. Section 2.0 of RIPE-525 (the current policy) states: "In order to help decrease global routing complexity, a new AS Number should be used only if a new external routing policy is required, see RFC1930." RFC1930 in turn lists some cases where an AS assigment is not needed, especially in context of single-homing. Marco, am I correct in assuming this reasoning has been followed? Section C: Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"? 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