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[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]
Erik Bais
erik at bais.name
Fri Nov 13 09:46:28 CET 2015
Hi Peter, > Thinking out loud: We could also apply the "last /8 policy" to this. > After it goes into effect, each LIR can request one and only one 16b ASN. > 32b ASNs are allocated as normal (with the question asked, but not > evalutated). I think that we are already beyond the point of handing out 1* 16b ASn to each LIR and there isn't that much left in the free pool I'm guessing .. ( that is my gut feeling .. ) But the NCC should be able to answer the total number in the RIPE pool ... Erik Bais
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)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 ]