Saw this:

Whilst the proposal does its best to outline pros and cons, I feel that from a policy perspective it removes the direct incentive to establish interconnectivity with IXP's (or some other mechanism for Multihoming). You gain an ASN but you are not compelled to increase the resilience of the Internet. To me that is a disadvantage that has not been stated. To me, having a network with an ASN means fundamentally you are participating in the mesh.

On the solution:

An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if:

    - they are currently multi-homed, OR

    - have previous allocated provider independent address space by 
      APNIC, AND intend to multi-home in the future

It seems to suggest a policy tilted towards incumbents or those who've been around long enough to have some PI space?

The problem statement:

The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy.

Suggests that removing the confusing or conflicting elements of the current policy is wise, but I'm not convinced the proposed solution does that without undermining what I think is a important characteristic of the Internet which is a highly interconnected mesh.

As an alternate, is it not better to strengthen the process to determine whether the applicant did indeed multi-home? There are downsides in that of course. It does place overhead on an entity to test that but what matters more? Ease of access into the ASN club or ensuring high levels of interconnectivity?

What do others think?

jamie