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[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Tue Nov 10 10:34:06 CET 2015
On 10 November 2015 at 04:30, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com> wrote: > Just for my understanding, is there any demand for 16b ASN from the > community? Yes, if you want to peer widely and publically, then a 32b ASN leads to "issues" with IXP route servers not being able to "cope". In addition it appears that filtering AS-Paths with 23456 in them has been suggested in various places as being a "good thing tm" So if I was getting a new AS I'd be requesting one to be 16b in order to avoid as much of this as possible J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]