Hi Sander, I'm not very familiar with the history but if it is like you are describing it then I agree with you.
Although we should maybe split this into a different thread because this is getting a bit confusing. -Cynthia On Mon, 12 Jun 2023, 14:13 Sander Steffann, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi WG, > > At some point in the past we had a discussion about making it easier to > request ASNs, basically removing the multihoming requirement. This working > group at the time decided to not do this because it *might* cause someone > to ask for an insane number of ASNs and overload the RIPE NCC. A recurring > (or even a one-time) cost for ASNs would automatically solve this issue, > because going insane would become financially unfeasible :) > > Now that the RIPE NCC’s membership has decided that they don’t care about > this, I think it’s time to reopen this discussion on our side. There are > many reasons someone might want to have an (extra) ASN: lab use, education > (I’d love to set up BGP training course where students can actually > announce a real IPv6 prefix to the world with a real ASN and see the > results), internal use (while still needing a globally unique one), not YET > being multi homed but going to in the future etc. > > I’d like to propose to remove the multi homing requirement from our ASN > policy, as the main reason why we decided not to last time doesn’t seem to > hold anymore. > > Cheers, > Sander > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
