[rpd] Require newly created AS-SETs to have hierarchical names AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT01.

[Hendrik Visage]

Organisation with network/ISP and separate hosting division
Not that uncommon

Sent from my mobile device

> On 28 May 2026, at 10:14, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
>> On 2026/05/28 09:54, James Bensley wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jaco,
>>
>> Thank you for the support and your feedback.
>>
>> I wrote the original proposal. Regarding this comment:
>>
>> "The only thing that I found weird is that the second element has to be a name, why would "ASnum:ASnum2:AS-name" not be acceptable?"
>>
>> If you have a use case for that, then that could be added to the proposal. Do you have a use case/requirement for this? I think this usage is very rare, but if you have this use case, please speak up :)
>
> It's a hierarchy right, so what if I want to refer my customers by their AS numbers?
>
> Eg, ASyyyy:ASxxxx:AS-set
>
> It's an arbitrary and in my opinion unneeded restriction which can be removed.  The only restriction is that the first component has to be ASnum where you have control over AS num.  The rest can be left to the discretion of the ASnum admin surely?
>
> So just drop bullet three entirely.
>
>>
>>
>> Regarding this comment:
>>
>> "The purpose/function of "3. Other set types such as route sets are excluded." is unclear - everything else speaks specifically to AS-SET so why is this mention required?"
>>
>> Because route-sets can also support hierarchical names and in the past people have had the thought "well if we're making this change for AS-SETs let's also making it for Route-Sets whilst we're here" - but route-sets are extremely rarely used today and this just adds scope which I think isn't needed. So it was just about trying to stop that scope creep.
>
> I hear you.
>
> 7.8 as as whole specifically states "AS-SET" - not "Set Types", and point 1 also makes it clears this refers specifically to AS-SET, which means point 3 can be dropped without changing the intent/meaning of 7.8 as a whole.
>
> Point 4 also really adds no value, that's an operational issue, not a policy issue.  Definitely a valid point and something to be aware but still operational, not policy.
>
> Exceptions to the policy may need to be permitted on a case by case basis *if and only if* a non-hierarchical AS-SET has been accidentally deleted to allow recreation.  IMHO these should require motivation to have them restored from where they can then be edited again as per point 6.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jaco
>
>>
>> With kind regards,
>> James Bensley (he/him)
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za>
>> Sent: 21 May 2026 14:06
>> To: dacostadarwin at gmail.com <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>; rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Require newly created AS-SETs to have hierarchical names AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT01.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Definitely in support.
>>
>> The only thing that I found weird is that the second element has to be a
>> name, why would "ASnum:ASnum2:AS-name" not be acceptable?
>>
>> The purpose/function of "3. Other set types such as route sets are
>> excluded." is unclear - everything else speaks specifically to AS-SET so
>> why is this mention required?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Jaco
>>
>>> On 2026/05/20 19:37, dacostadarwin at gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear PDWG,
>>>
>>> We have received a new draft policy proposal - Require newly created AS-SETs to have hierarchical names, ID AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT01 from author James Bensley.
>>>
>>> The proposal contents are published at:
>>> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-asn-001-draft01
>>>
>>> We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal contents and  provide feedback as follows:
>>>
>>> a) Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>>>
>>> b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons?
>>>
>>> c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>>>
>>> d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
>>> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> [CompanySignature]
>> Inter..link GmbH | Boxhagener Straße 80, 10245 Berlin, Germany | Managing Directors: Marc Korthaus, Theo Voss | Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 138876 | VAT ID: DE281288887 | Email: hello at inter.link<mailto:hello at inter.link> | Web: inter.link<https://inter.link>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
---

Hendrik Visage

hvisage at hevis.co.za


HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd

https://www.envisage.co.za