[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Tue Aug 11 22:51:15 CEST 2015
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015, at 12:24, Job Snijders wrote: > It might be interesting if we could shift the discussion away from "How > to justify to RIPE NCC how you run your network" to a slightly different > angle: "Helping the community prevent hoarding". Nothing more, nothing > less. Because AS numbers are still limited ressources. We are just making (since at least 5 years) the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit (which we found some time ago that it does not represent infinite). So for 16-bit ASNs, I find that yes, people should justify to RIPE NCC how do they run the network in order to get an unique number. For 32-bit ASNs, there is no problem YET, but let's not make a habit (quickly transformed into rule) about how to get exclusivity on unique numbers.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]