[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "Multihoming not required for ASN (AFPUB-2019-ASN-DRAFT01)"

[Owen DeLong]

Actually, it’s not entirely true.

You might not be multi-homed to separate providers, but you might need to announce BGP for a variety of purposes involving traffic
management and/or unique routing policies across different connections to the same provider.

You might need to be able to pass along customer announcements and exchange routes via BGP with your customers. While I would
consider this case to be multi-homing, many people connote multi-homing to be limited to an expression of connection to multiple upstream providers.

Owen


> On Mar 28, 2019, at 06:44 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Well yes that we all know works technically but that's not the only point.
> Now a days most companies will not be able to assign sufficient resources to a downstream customers so having their own PI space makes it more flexible and they can have as many necessary for their full operation.
> Other reasons are: in many places you may not have access to two providers but you may still need to have the PI space for example to serve the local area, to have stable addresses, so in the future when more upstreams you are ready to add it to the operation.
> Also you may still have one upstream but you may be able to connect to a local Internet Exchange or even to a local partner via  Private Interconection.
> 
> The requirement for Multihoming for requesting an ASN have been removed in other RIRs which in my view is a natural thing so I believe this is something that is not needed now a day as many aspects are different from when it was made in this way.
> 
> Regards
> Fernando
> 
> On 28/03/2019 10:07, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> If you're not multihoming your upstream can simply point a static route towards you.  No need for an ASN.
>> 
>> Even if you're multihoming that's still possible, but in that case you're more likely to want the control that having an ASN gives you.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> Jaco
>> 
>> On 2019/03/25 17:17, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> I want to give my support to the proposal for "Multhoming not required for ASN" (AFPUB-2019-ASN-DRAFT01).
>>> 
>>> As the author states in the summary and justification now a days requiring Multihoming is something obsolete and nothing something really necessary.
>>> 
>>> With the exhaustion of IPv4 it becomes increasing important, specially for newer companies to have their own IPv4 addresses as they will hardly be able to have any reasonable size of allocations from upstream providers as it used to be before. As also mentioned one may wishes to have their own allocation and stable addresses, will not depend from upstream providers and be able to announce their PI space.
>>> 
>>> Fernando
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd