[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]
Sergey Myasoedov
sergey at devnull.ru
Wed Nov 11 19:57:51 CET 2015
Why don’t you wish to talk to the Policy Development Officer? -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On 11 Nov 2015, at 19:55, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]