[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Purely as a point of information, I think its worth remembering that 32 bit
ASN cannot be used in currently specified BGP4 in communities, because its
a 32 bit field defined as two 16 bit halves. I believe there is work afoot
in IETF to fix this. I don't have concrete details.

Therefore there *is* a quality in 16 bit ASN which may be divorced from its
association with specific V4 or V6 resources and which makes it a desirable
thing, in itself, for some people: If you are in the business of doing TE
in BGP with communities, you can't do it with 32 bit ASN. You have to use
other mechanisms.

On that basis, Should you permit transfers of ASN, you might wish to permit
transfers of ASN independently of any associated routable IP address space:
people who already have space but need a 16 bit ASN may wish to acquire one.

I'm not an asset holder in the RIPE region, and I am staff at another RIR,
so I stress this is purely informational. I'm not trying to directly
advocate for or against ASN transfers.

-George

On 3 September 2015 at 14:38, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:

> On 03/09/2015 18:09, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> > Mind, if yelling loudly is how you get policy made in the RIPE
> > community, rest assured I can yell VERY loudly. I can, in fact,
> > even automate the yelling if need be.
>
> please don't:  rfc7282 works much better.
>
> Nick
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150903/d245e651/attachment.html>