[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:02:07AM +0100, Christian Kratzer wrote:
> The situaion is very similar to the last /8 situation and I would support extending the last /8 policy to 16 bit AS numbers as well.

Actually, it is totally different.  LIRs are entities that handle address
distribution, but not necessarily run a network (many do, some do not),
so tieing "last /8 address space" to "one LIR one block" is a compromise
that sort of follows what the LIR does: hand out address space.

Now, AS numbers are much more tied to the structure of the network - who
is running BGP, who is transitting other ASes or just a leaf node - and
the model "one LIR = one transit autonomous system" totally doesn't hold 
- not even "one LIR = one autonomous system in BGP".

For a leaf node, 32bit ASes work mostly well.  For a transit network, not
so much, for the reasons listed - but not every LIR is a transit network
(or has plans to eventually become one).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151113/2763f747/attachment.sig>