More flexible policy for better operation practice is really preferred in all cases. -Lu On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
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
-- -- Kind regards. Lu