Good morning, please keep in mind that use cases such as GRX (GSM Roaming Exchange) and of course IXP route servers do exist which require a unique ASN but do not ever show up in the DFZ. Thanks Max On 03 June, 2025 17:59 CEST, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote: Gert Doering wrote on 01/06/2025 16:08:On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 09:43:31AM -0500, David Farmer wrote: 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 :-) When requesting an additional ASN, asking how your current ASNs are used doesn't seem unreasonable. Your old ASNs would not be reclaimed if they are not being used. However, the new request should be denied if you already have an unused ASN that could be used instead of requesting an additional ASN. This is along the lines I was thinking, so, this would work for me :-) In theory this is an improvement, but it would also stop organisations from requesting multiple ASNs if they had a legitimate requirement for multiple ASNs. Nick