[routing-wg]Re: [address-policy-wg] 32-bit AS Number status?

Dear Shane,

During RIPE 58, Daniel Karrenberg has made a presentation, titled "32- 
bit ASN Take-Up Report, Policy Adjustments Needed?".
You can find the presentation at the archives at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/asn32-take-up-report.pdf

Slide 5 of the presentation relates to your question. The RIPE NCC  
proposed that the method of assigning ASNs that was employed in 2009  
should continue after 1 January 2010. This means that all assignments  
will be for 32-bit only ASNs by default, unless a 16-bit ASN is  
specifically requested. The AP WG agreed with this proposal.

You can find the records of this at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/meeting-report.php
and
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r58-minutes.html

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Filiz Yilmaz
Policy Development Manager
RIPE NCC


On 28 Jan 2010, at 18:29, Shane Kerr wrote:

> All,
>
> I noticed that the proposed updated AS Number policy was sent to the
> address-policy-wg recently.
>
> There is a timeline for 32-bit AS Number in both the old and new
> versions, which says:
>
> "From 1 January 2010 the RIPE NCC will cease to make any distinction
> between 16-bit AS Numbers and 32-bit only AS Numbers, and will operate
> AS Number assignments from an undifferentiated 32-bit AS Number
> allocation pool."
>
> I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is supposed to  
> mean
> that people get 32-bit AS Numbers now. Did this happen?
>
> If it didn't, why not? Do we need to change "2010" to "2011"? Is it  
> ever
> going to happen?
>
> If it did, was there any effect? I mean both from humans (angry LIRs,
> peasants marching on the castle with torches, riots in the streets),  
> or
> on the Intertubes (ugly routing artifacts, mass reboots of boxes with
> old firmware, monitoring systems gone wild)?
>
> Just wondering. :)
>
> --
> Shane
>