[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]
Saku Ytti
saku at ytti.fi
Tue Nov 10 15:00:30 CET 2015
On 10 November 2015 at 14:37, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com> wrote: > 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? I would expect that anyone who gets 16b ASN transits some downstream. Otherwise it's hard to argue you need globally visible BGP communities. -- ++ytti
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]