With Kind Regards,

Dominik Nowacki

Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse@clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

On 7 May 2019, at 14:24, Maxim A Piskunov <ffamax@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, all!

Since time when AS was obtained to time when network will become multihomed may passed some time, up to several years.

It's mean several kilometers of cables should be buried in the ground before it happens. In some cases. Or the same onether kinds of tasks should be done.

It's not mean that some guys, who put on their eyes pink glasses, should decide for all other that network should already multihomed from scratch.

No!

Network should be multihomed by design - it's enough.

On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 15:30, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 01:18:14PM +0100, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg wrote:
> I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and
> resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS
> guidelines RIPE-679, specifically:
>
> *A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.*
>
> The application for an AS number has been delayed because the NCC analyst
> working on the ticket is claiming the ISP has to be *already multihomed*
> before an AS can be issued.
>
> This interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. Surely the intention *to
> become multihomed* should be the requirement for obtaining an AS number?

Speaking as WG participant and long time LIR contact, this sounds funny
indeed. And none of my AS requests so far have been for networks that
were *already* multihomed (because, well, how can you be without an
AS number...).

> I don't even see how you can be properly multihomed if you don't have an AS
> number. Are we supposed to implement some kind of NAT multihoming first?
>
> Can we look to change the wording in RIPE-679 to make this clear?

Now, speaking as WG chair, we can just toss the ball at Marco/Andrea
from the NCC RS department and ask them to comment on this, and whether
this is an issue of policy wording, misunderstanding, or possibly
miscommunication (language barriers...).

We can also spend some time at the next meeting to discuss this in
the WG meeting - that's what our time is for, have face to face chats
to clarify intentions, interpretations, and possibly ways forward...

Gert Doering
-- multi-hatted individual
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279