APNIC · RIR Watchdog
Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.
Source facts
Who actually shaped the debate?
BTW Analysis
The proposal moved from broad eligibility based on planned ASN use within six months, through Secretariat-managed alternative guidelines, to a narrower final rule. Version 3 keeps current multihoming as one route and adds a route for an organisation that already has APNIC provider-independent address space and intends to multihome. APNIC's published record reports implementation on 10 February 2016.
The substantive issue was how much an operator must demonstrate before it can obtain an ASN and prepare an independent routing policy. Requiring multihoming first can make preparation harder for a new network; relaxing that requirement raises questions about genuine need and the predictability of eligibility decisions. The linked early discussion includes both support for easier access and opposition to assignments without demonstrated need. It does not establish that those comments represented the whole APNIC community.
The recorded implementation concerns the final proposal. The early comments retained here are a cross-regional discussion on the AFRINIC list about the broader initial proposal, not a vote on version 3. They cannot be counted as APNIC's formal consensus decision or used to attribute the final wording to a particular participant.
The linked record contains five messages from four discussion participants; two additional formal actors bring the combined count to six. One discussion participant supplied two of the five messages. This is a small, concentrated observed exchange, and message share measures activity rather than representativeness, decision authority or control over the outcome.
ASN eligibility is an administrative control point in an operator's path to routing autonomy. Version 2 would have placed the alternative justification in Secretariat-managed guidelines; version 3 instead states an explicit qualification. That improves the visibility of the rule, but the prior provider-independent allocation condition ties the new route to an earlier allocation decision and can leave an otherwise comparable new entrant outside it. An applicant-facing assessment should therefore examine consistent application, accessible reasons for refusals and whether the qualification actually serves the stated technical need.
ASN eligibility · Version 2 replaces eligibility based on planned ASN use within six months with two routes: current multihoming, or another criterion in guidelines managed by the APNIC Secretariat. It no longer makes a six-month usage plan the sole stated test.
An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: - Is planning to use it within next 6 monthsSource facts ↗
An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed OR - meet one of the other criteria in the guidelines managed by the APNIC SecretariatSource facts ↗
Secretariat guidance and alternative uses · Version 2 introduces proposed draft guidelines for alternative justification, including future multihoming, elastic-fabric connectivity, regional connectivity constraints and a distinct routing policy while single-homed. These are proposed examples for Secretariat-managed guidance, not evidence that each example was adopted.
The intention to multi-home in the future The applicant is participating in elastic fabrics where the requirements to connect to ‘on demand’ service providers may require ASN/BGP connectivity Regional limitation of obtaining multi-homing connectivity in the ‘immediate’ term, but want to design their networks for this capability Have a single unique routing policy different to their upstream, but yet are single-homedSource facts ↗
Stated consumption concern · Where version 1 states that there is no disadvantage, version 2 acknowledges a possible perception of easier access and faster ASN consumption. The proposers dispute an actual consumption effect because workarounds already exist; this is their argument, not a measured outcome.
It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain ASN’s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN’s in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with ‘work around’ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have any effect.Source facts ↗
Alternative eligibility narrowed · Version 3 retains current multihoming as one route but replaces the open reference to Secretariat-managed eligibility guidelines with an explicit alternative: previously allocated APNIC provider-independent address space and an intention to multihome in future. The draft guideline examples attached to version 2 are absent. The advantages paragraph still refers to Secretariat-managed guidelines, so that carryover wording should not be read as reinstating the broader alternative in the operative eligibility text.
An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed OR - meet one of the other criteria in the guidelines managed by the APNIC SecretariatSource facts ↗
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 futureSource facts ↗
Public discussion
4 Discussion messages · 3 Entities
Source facts ↗Last research attempt: Sep 25, 2026
Identity verified: Sep 25, 2026
Ernest Byaruhanga RS Manager AfriNIC [email protected]meeting.afrinic.net
Verified public profiles
First explicit stance: Unknown → Latest explicit stance: Unknown · Stance changes: 0
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Ernest Byaruhanga's February 2015 message forwards APNIC's proposed ASN eligibility change to the AFRINIC discussion and explains the proposed six-month-use criterion. It establishes that he considered the proposal relevant enough to circulate, not that he personally endorsed it. One explanatory message cannot establish continuity or a change of position.
Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Ernest introduces the proposal as potentially interesting to the region and summarizes the replacement for the multihoming requirement. The quoted eligibility rule is proposed policy text, not a separate personal declaration of support. There is no second attributed position on this proposal in the supplied evidence.
Conditions: The message was sent to the AFRINIC community about an APNIC proposal; the source list and the proposal's jurisdiction are different facts. · This is a February 2015 proposal description, not a statement of current ASN assignment rules.
FYI - this could be of interest in our region.
The proposal removes the need to multi-home as the only criteria to receive an ASN, replaces it with:
[rpd] Fwd: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
The proposal removes the need to multi-home as the only criteria to
Source facts ↗Total policy messages: 12
Partial
Earliest captured: Jun 1, 2001
Latest captured: Oct 14, 2026
