Very good input, thank you Wilfried! Does anyone else have any suggestions or objections to: "A new AS number is only assigned when the network architecture and/or project has a need that cannot be satisfied by an existing AS number." If there are no objections to this part of the text, that gives the WG a good foundation to build on in Bucharest, in my opinion. David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation
-----Original Message----- From: Wilfried Woeber [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:00 AM To: David Huberman <David.Huberman@microsoft.com> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
David Huberman wrote:
Thank you, ytti.
So let's start with the basics. Does the following text allow the NCC to meet the needs of network operators today?
"A new AS number is only assigned when the network architecture
I would be more edxplicit and more flexible here, by adding e.g.
or project
has a need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS number."
Looking at SDN stuff and pilot projects or testbeds, or even trainings or workshops, I can see the need to interconnect such projects with the 'real' net and to use globally unique AS numbers.
I do understanf that "network architecture" can be interpreted as a rather wide and flexible term, but we should try to provide as good guidance as we can to support the evaluation of requests by the IPRAs.
Wilfried
There will be more policy text. But again, let's start with -- and agree on -- the basics.
Thanks! David
David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation