[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Tue Nov 10 10:34:06 CET 2015
On 10 November 2015 at 04:30, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com> wrote: > Just for my understanding, is there any demand for 16b ASN from the > community? Yes, if you want to peer widely and publically, then a 32b ASN leads to "issues" with IXP route servers not being able to "cope". In addition it appears that filtering AS-Paths with 23456 in them has been suggested in various places as being a "good thing tm" So if I was getting a new AS I'd be requesting one to be 16b in order to avoid as much of this as possible J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]