Application for AS number
Hi all 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? 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? Aled
Aled, You could come up with a policy proposal to change the wording. With that’s said I wouldn’t say this is required. This is a common sense issue. Naturally if you can prove you’re multihoming the future network, so you have two ASNa that will peer with $NEWAS and they are happy to confirm it, I wouldn’t see a reason for this to be an issue, you might want to escalate it to within the NCC so the manager of said analyst could look into it. If you currently have only one peer and no solid plans to immediately turn up the other one for the new AS, so it is multihomed, I’d say the analyst is right in causing a fuss about it - ASNs are allocated for multihoming. With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969<tel: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<mailto: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 13:19, Aled Morris via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: Hi all 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? 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? Aled
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
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
Hi Maxim, What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from using a default route instead ? With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from using a default route instead ? When build process is done, it should start work. It is very strange situation, when network component is ready and we should wait some time while obtaining AS. It's bullshit of office clerk. AS maybe and should be obtained in advance and to be ready for use.
Try to understand from operators needs, not declare to operator how operator should do his business, okey? On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 16:34, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Maxim, What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from using a default route instead ?
With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki
Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: *08750969* <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* <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
Hi, On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:51:13PM +0300, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
It is very strange situation, when network component is ready and we should wait some time while obtaining AS. It's bullshit of office clerk.
Please keep your language polite. As I already said - let's ask Marco and Andrea for feedback what happened, and whether they need some sort of guidance statement and/or wording change for us. And, please, do proper quoting. "fullquote-style" is frowned upon here. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Please keep your language polite. As I already said - let's ask Marco and Andrea for feedback what happened, and whether they need some sort of guidance statement and/or wording change for us. And, please, do proper quoting. "fullquote-style" is frowned upon here. Attachments area
Thanks. Please ask other people the same - to keep their thoughts about how other people should to do their works. When people trying to change some fundamental principles of freedom of choice, it's very painy. Possibility to have AS in advance - it's operator freedom in actions. Anybody can't try to disable this possibility. I am shame people who trying to take it from us. Anybody can be applicant for AS. Even if currently network not multihomed. On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 17:03, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:51:13PM +0300, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
It is very strange situation, when network component is ready and we should wait some time while obtaining AS. It's bullshit of office clerk.
Please keep your language polite. As I already said - let's ask Marco and Andrea for feedback what happened, and whether they need some sort of guidance statement and/or wording change for us.
And, please, do proper quoting. "fullquote-style" is frowned upon here.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Hi, On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:16:11PM +0300, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
Please keep your language polite. As I already said - let's ask Marco and Andrea for feedback what happened, and whether they need some sort of guidance statement and/or wording change for us. And, please, do proper quoting. "fullquote-style" is frowned upon here. Attachments area
Thanks. Please ask other people the same - to keep their thoughts about how other people should to do their works.
I do. As WG chair it's part of my job to keep the discussion polite, and encourage clarification from the NCC. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
On May 7, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Maxim A Piskunov <ffamax@gmail.com> wrote:
Possibility to have AS in advance - it's operator freedom in actions.
Anybody can be applicant for AS.
Huh. So I was wondering if you realized that the outcome of your proposal was “all requests for an AS must be satisfied immediately”. But this sure looks like that is precisely what you meant. If that’s not what you meant, you might want to explain what the approval constraints should be. —Sandy
Huh. So I was wondering if you realized that the outcome of your proposal was “all requests for an AS must be satisfied immediately”. But this sure looks like that is precisely what you meant. If that’s not what you meant, you might want to explain what the approval constraints should be.
The best thing is when any LIR may claim one AS for one customer without any approval. Just if customer asking for AS - just give AS. If customer asking for another and first AS is still spare (not multihomed) then some strategy may be required. Yes, it's good idea to delegate pre approved AS-list to LIR for assigning to their customers. On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 17:55, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:
On May 7, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Maxim A Piskunov <ffamax@gmail.com> wrote:
Possibility to have AS in advance - it's operator freedom in actions.
Anybody can be applicant for AS.
Huh.
So I was wondering if you realized that the outcome of your proposal was “all requests for an AS must be satisfied immediately”.
But this sure looks like that is precisely what you meant.
If that’s not what you meant, you might want to explain what the approval constraints should be.
—Sandy
Hi, On 07/05/2019 14:34, Dominik Nowacki wrote:
Hi Maxim, What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from using a default route instead ?
Nothing, of course. But it is a little hard to announce your own address space behind a provider if you don't have an AS. And having your upstream originate it just means pain (and usually downtime) whilst they convert you from a non-BGP service to a BGP-enabled one. I personally have no problem with making it easier to obtain an AS if you intend to multihome at some point in the future (measured in years if necessary - let people who want to do the Right Thing from day one do that). There are plenty of 32 bit AS numbers available, they are not a scarce resource and we as a community should probably not treat them as such. Paul.
I explain a little more detailed. Obtained in advance AS has about zero cost. Real network resources has a solid costs. Resources should be registered at first, like we register a firm before start to do something. We need some lawful resource ability confirmation at first. On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 16:53, Paul Thornton <paul@prtsystems.ltd.uk> wrote:
Hi,
On 07/05/2019 14:34, Dominik Nowacki wrote:
Hi Maxim, What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from using a default route instead ?
Nothing, of course.
But it is a little hard to announce your own address space behind a provider if you don't have an AS. And having your upstream originate it just means pain (and usually downtime) whilst they convert you from a non-BGP service to a BGP-enabled one.
I personally have no problem with making it easier to obtain an AS if you intend to multihome at some point in the future (measured in years if necessary - let people who want to do the Right Thing from day one do that). There are plenty of 32 bit AS numbers available, they are not a scarce resource and we as a community should probably not treat them as such.
Paul.
Hi Paul,
I personally have no problem with making it easier to obtain an AS if you intend to multihome at some point in the future (measured in years if necessary - let people who want to do the Right Thing from day one do that). There are plenty of 32 bit AS numbers available, they are not a scarce resource and we as a community should probably not treat them as such.
This! Cheers, Sander
Hi all, I've already drafted a policy proposal to make a change on this, but if I got it correctly, the chairs were believing that it was not needed, so I never officially submitted it. I'm happy to submit it again. It may be interesting for all the list participants to read my policy proposal about this exact same point in AfriNIC: https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-asn-001-d2#proposal Regards, Jordi El 7/5/19 10:54, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Sander Steffann" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de sander@steffann.nl> escribió: Hi Paul, > I personally have no problem with making it easier to obtain an AS if you intend to multihome at some point in the future (measured in years if necessary - let people who want to do the Right Thing from day one do that). There are plenty of 32 bit AS numbers available, they are not a scarce resource and we as a community should probably not treat them as such. This! Cheers, Sander ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Dear Aled, Gert, all, Please allow me to provide some clarification. I can confirm that the RIPE NCC does take future deployments into account and AS Numbers can be assigned in advance. Regarding this specific case, there was a miscommunication that we have now clarified directly in the request (which is still ongoing). Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis Assistant Manager Registration Services & Policy Development RIPE NCC
On 7 May 2019, at 14:30, 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
Hi Nikolas, On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Nikolas Pediaditis wrote:
Please allow me to provide some clarification.
I can confirm that the RIPE NCC does take future deployments into account and AS Numbers can be assigned in advance.
Regarding this specific case, there was a miscommunication that we have now clarified directly in the request (which is still ongoing).
Thanks a lot. So from a policy point of view, I see no urgent need to "fix" something here (neither "the office clerk" nor "the policy" or "the understanding"). Of course we can always discuss whether to loosen up the policy further, but that would be a formal policy change. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Thank you Nikolas, Gert and everyone who contributed to this conversation. It's good to check that we do all agree. Aled
On 07/05/2019 14:18, 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?
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?
Pointing to RFC 1930 and pointing out you will want to move - from "Single-homed site, multiple prefixes" - to "Multi-homed site, multiple prefixes" requires you be assigned an ASN. You can ask the the NCC analyst, if it is alright to provide them with agreements with existing upstream provider A and future upstream provider B is sufficient to be assigned the ASN(?) -Christoffer ---- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930#section-5.1 * Single-homed site, multiple prefixes Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be placed in an AS of the site's provider. * Multi-homed site Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience. An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers. This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre- sentation of policy and preference among the different service providers. This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing protocols, such as BGP4.
I strongly take position that at least one AS any company may have in advance. It's nothing, but it's make further pain is void. On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 16:55, Hansen, Christoffer <christoffer@netravnen.de> wrote:
On 07/05/2019 14:18, 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?
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?
Pointing to RFC 1930 and pointing out you will want to move - from "Single-homed site, multiple prefixes" - to "Multi-homed site, multiple prefixes" requires you be assigned an ASN.
You can ask the the NCC analyst, if it is alright to provide them with agreements with existing upstream provider A and future upstream provider B is sufficient to be assigned the ASN(?)
-Christoffer
----
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930#section-5.1
* Single-homed site, multiple prefixes
Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be placed in an AS of the site's provider.
* Multi-homed site
Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.
An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers. This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre- sentation of policy and preference among the different service providers. This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing protocols, such as BGP4.
participants (10)
-
Aled Morris -
Dominik Nowacki -
Gert Doering -
Hansen, Christoffer -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Maxim A Piskunov -
Nikolas Pediaditis -
Paul Thornton -
Sander Steffann -
Sandra Murphy