[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 11:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> 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.

Not so much lately. At least not for new players and for the cases where
a opening a LIR replaces a PI block.
However, I do agree that some LIRs may not need an ASN at all, and most
others may be fine with 32bit ASNs. Even for transit networks, 16-bit
ASN is not a must in all cases.

I think needs evaluation, as ugly as it is, it's still the best way of
not wasting limited ressoucres. And a good recovery policy (maybe
including "forced recovery/deregistration for non-complicance") is even
better.

Concerning the criteria for allocating a 16bit ASN, for a transit
network I would add "accept 32bit ASN from customers", just to make
sure. There are really ugly thing out there in the wild.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs