[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]
Aleksey Bulgakov
aleksbulgakov at gmail.com
Wed Nov 11 19:55:21 CET 2015
Hello. Who can send the docs for new proposal creation? 10 нояб. 2015 г. 17:00 пользователь "Saku Ytti" <saku at ytti.fi> написал: > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151111/3f885396/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- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]