Re: [ripe-152bis] Updating "Charging by Local Internet Registries"

[leo vegoda <]

Carlos Friacas cfriacas@localhost wrote:

[...]

> > Why are AS Numbers different from IPv4 address space here? Why is it
> > acceptable to charge for AS Numbers and not IP space?
> IPv4 address conservation is not an issue now...
> It is solved by IPv6. But as we konw... IPv6 doesnt solve ASNs < 2^16
> Or are we going to step into 32 bit ASNs?
> If yes, i dont have any argument against. :-)
It looks like the IETF Inter-Domain Routing WG is addressing the 
extension of BGP to support 4-byte AS Numbers.

Nonetheless, is it right to use money as the deciding factor here? What 
advantage is there in dissuading those without suitably flush budgets 
from obtaining an AS Number when one is needed? Surely AS Numbers are 
there to be assigned to the networks that need them.

It seems that a policy that used ability to pay to help with 
conservation of AS Numbers might have the effect of enabling late 
entrants with suitable budgets to afford an AS Number while limiting 
access to earlier entrants without such a budget.

Is money the right tool to use when looking at AS Number conservation? 
Indeed, what would be the purpose of AS Number conservation based on 
ability to pay?

Regards,

--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services Manager