On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 05:17:54PM +0200, Urban Suhadolnik via address-policy-wg wrote:
On 31. 03. 2025 18:43, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 31 Mar 2025, at 14:32, Marco Schmidt<mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
More importantly, the RIPE NCC very rarely turns down requests. Instead, requesters often abandon their requests after we ask for additional information. This can be due to policy-related reasons, compliance issues (e.g., missing registration papers), or simply a change of mind. Since many requesters stop responding, the exact reasons are not known to the RIPE NCC.
Thank you, Marco, for providing this insight which is useful.
It strikes me that the goals of the proposal are already met by the policy in place? Surely nothing to fix here?
It is true that single-homed AS are the norm (in RIPE),
Single-homed ASes are the norm? Says who? I'd like us to discuss this a bit more, because as I understand the technology stack, it is incredibly hard (if not impossible) to externally observe with accuracy whether an AS is single-homed or multi-homed. For example, an AS with 1 private peering partner and 1 upstream provider is multi-homed, but RIPE RIS data most likely won't contain data indicative for this private peering adjacency, in RIPE RIS data you'd likely only see the 1 upstream provider, and wrongly conclude the AS is single-homed. Kind regards, Job