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

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:00:58PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Job Snijders wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> The LIR with the largest amount of ASNs, how many ASNs do they have?

It is easier to focus on the End User with the largest amount of ASNs
rather then the middle-person the LIR. I believe at a previous RIPE
meeting it was highlighted in the APWG session that the largest consumer
of ASNs has 100 ASNs (ignoring legacy).

> Why not say it starts to cost money after 3x this current value and
> for RIPE to report back when single ASN has more than 2x current max
> value? If (for instance) current max is 100 ASNs then limiting (at
> least for now) to 300ASNs per LIR might be a way to go?
> 
> I have no idea how hard it is for RIPE to handle these limits though, I
> don't want to make up a lot of rules just hapazardly that then causes
> significant CAPEX/OPEX for RIPE.

APWG cannot and will not decide on the charging scheme. As I mentioned
before an attempt to start charging for ASNs was shot down by the last
AGM.

Kind regards,

Job