[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Policy Proposal (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Hi,

I'm writing to provide some information and am neither speaking for or
against the proposal.

Saku Ytti wrote:

[...]

> Few things I'm somewhat concerned of, but seem to be out-of-scope for this
> particular policy, but may require work in other places.
> 
>  a) should 16b ASN be special? You get GLOP/24 with it and you get BGP
 > communities. Some use-cases absolutely depend on these, some use-cases
don't.
 > Is it realistic/possible to have different requirements for 16b and 32b?

I should probably point out that there are other sources of IPv4 multicast
address space if this is a consideration. Firstly, there are the
Unicast-Prefix-Based IPv4 Multicast Addresses, which are assigned
algorithmically. Every IPv4 /24 prefix gives the user a /32 multicast
address from 234/8. 

If a network operator does not have GLOP or Unicast-Prefix-Based IPv4
Multicast Addresses, or has used all those addresses, then it also possible
to request an assignment (https://www.iana.org/form/multicast-ipv4). There
is no charge for multicast address assignments and there's no immediate
danger of running out of multicast space to assign.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5495 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140501/3e926d62/attachment.p7s>