[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Dear Peter and Aftab,

Extended communities are not transported in the Internet. So if I
start new company and I want to sell IP transit, I'm competitively in
disadvantageous position if I cannot market <myASN>:<action> traffic
engineering policies to my customers.
Sure I can use privateASN (and I must), but they are clearly less
preferable on INET, and almost certainly won't cross many links.

I.e. 16b ASN is special and should be under more strict assignment
policy, when living without BGP communities is hard.

On 10 November 2015 at 11:49, Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org> wrote:
> On 2015 Nov 10 (Tue) at 04:30:22 +0000 (+0000), Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> :Just for my understanding, is there any demand for 16b ASN from the
> :community?
>
> There is a technical case when attempting to use communities in the
> <as>:<as> format.  There is not yet a 32:32b community available,
> even in extended communities.  16b:32b and 32b:16b do exist, so I'm not
> sure how critical that is.
>
> --
> The bigger the theory the better.
>



-- 
  ++ytti