[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]
Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com
Tue Nov 10 13:37:46 CET 2015
Hi Saku, > Extended communities are not transported in the Internet. So if I > start new company and I want to sell IP transit, I'm competitively in > disadvantageous position if I cannot market <myASN>:<action> traffic > engineering policies to my customers. > Sure I can use privateASN (and I must), but they are clearly less > preferable on INET, and almost certainly won't cross many links. > Yes I totally agree here. > I.e. 16b ASN is special and should be under more strict assignment > policy, when living without BGP communities is hard. Problem is the extremely low number of 16b ASN in the pool of every RIR. Although RIPE NCC has a quarantine policy (if am not mistaken) with 000+ ASN in it (NCC can confirm). Strict assignment policy would be great but BGP Communities can be simple justification to get 16b ASN and bypass any hurdles isn't it? -- Best Wishes, Aftab A. Siddiqui -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151110/c508b0a5/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]