[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 101: Multihomed initial allocationcriteria - revised

[Martin Hannigan]

On Dec 30, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:25, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 30, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Member Services wrote:
> <snip>
> >> be currently Multihomed (or immediately become Multihomed) and  
> have an
> >> ARIN assigned AS number.
> >>
> > Why would you want to preclude the use of legacy ASNs and/or ASNs  
> issued
> > by other registries?
>
> I had not thought of legacy ASNs - perhaps the wording should be
> "...and have a validly assigned AS number."?
>


It appears to me that the RSA covers the geographic requirements and  
that including them in policy is redundant and confusing. These  
additional requirements seem to make this policy intractable.  
Including the comments that I made related to the previous text  
(something I consider valid since this is a political process) I did  
intend to include that ASN requirement.

If I were to write this in laymans english;

[...] be multihomed, contractually obligated to become mult-homed and  
be eligible for assignment of IP address resources in the ARIN region.

The rationale here is to let the RSA do it's job and us to do our job  
more easily. I'm not really in support of this policy as it stands,  
but might be with edits that clean it up. I don't agree with nibbles.  
Why not get it out of the way now and finally get it off of the to-do  
list?


Best Regards,


-M<