Hi,

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 02:50:42PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> - The first ASN remains exempt from any criteria now or in the future, or
>
> - The first ASN is evaluated retrospectively, for example once an additional
> ASN request is made.

This is a nontrivial question.

Basically it boils down to "so, thanks for your second ASN request, but
why are you not using the ASN you already have for it?" - which the policy
requires ("different policy").  So if the first ASN is basically unused
and/or not visible, "I want to announce 192.0.2.0/24 from the second ASN,
and I'm not using the first for anything" is, technically, "a different
routing policy".

Marco, the way you phrase it ("is evaluated retrospectively") has the
ring of "if you ask for a second ASN, and have no good arguments, we take
the first one away" - which is not such a good message to send.

Maybe something long the lines "for subsequent ASNs, the requestor needs
to document why existing ASNs can not be used"?  There is some leeway in
evaluating, and it might spur the requestor into actually thinking "why
can I not use one of the ones I already have?" - writing down a reason
often helps in reconsidering what one really wants :-)