This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Policy Proposal (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Policy Proposal (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Policy Proposal (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu May 1 18:17:47 CEST 2014
On 01/05/2014 11:10, Saku Ytti wrote: > 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? running an ASN32 leaf network is fine, otherwise it's a bit tragic due to community pain. Would probably not be a bad idea to differentiate between asn16 and asn32 until we see a functional bgp community spec widely available which is fully asn32 compatible. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Policy Proposal (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Policy Proposal (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]