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[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]
Saku Ytti
saku at ytti.fi
Tue Nov 10 15:00:30 CET 2015
On 10 November 2015 at 14:37, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com> wrote: > Problem is the extremely low number of 16b ASN in the pool of every RIR. > Although RIPE NCC has a quarantine policy (if am not mistaken) with 000+ ASN > in it (NCC can confirm). Strict assignment policy would be great but BGP > Communities can be simple justification to get 16b ASN and bypass any > hurdles isn't it? I would expect that anyone who gets 16b ASN transits some downstream. Otherwise it's hard to argue you need globally visible BGP communities. -- ++ytti
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]