[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Job Snijders wrote:
> >I've noted as an argument opposing this proposal: "An adversary could try
> >to deplete the pool of available ASNs." If someone has a workable
> >suggestion how to resolve that in policy, I am all ears, but I wouldn't
> >mind a pragmatic approach where we just trust our community and deal with
> >issues if and when they arise.
> 
> Cap the number of ASNs handed out until the policy is evaluated.
> 
> RIPE is allowed to hand out $NUMBER ASNs under this policy, when $NUMBER/2
> has been reached, please come back and tell us how it went.
> 
> If $NUMBER is in the 10k-50k range, and we're talking 32bit ASNs, we haven't
> used up a huge amount of this limited resource.

Very interesting approach! We'd call it the "Anything goes" ASN pool.
Arguably this approach mitigates the risk of depleting the entire pool.

> Also, having an ASN costs money per year, right? So if someone wants to sit
> on 1000 ASNs, this will actually cost significant money?

ASNs have no associated cost. Sitting on 1, 1k or 10k has no impact on
your bill. Unless the charging scheme is updated next year to bring
changes in this area. The last AGM meeting made it clear to me that the
community does not want to associate a linear cost with ASN assignment.

Kind regards,

Job