I think that the pilot projects, testbeds or trainings are/could be already covered by the temporary assignments for which I think this proposal was not intended to change anything. I think that one 16bit ASN per LIR limit is not prudent as LIR != route end point, this notion that LIR is also "end customer" or the sole user of the network has been established in the last few years with the last /8 policy where I guess most of the new LIRs are actually also the route end point for their allocation, but if you look back LIRs were/are the middle-man between RIR and end customer which actually (could) need their own ASN so the need for the 16bit ASN exists at a third party and not directly with the LIR. I guess the need for 16bit ASN and with that requirements to get a 16bit ASN should stay unchanged but on the other hand the limitations for 32bit ASNs could be more relaxed. Uros On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:
David Huberman wrote:
Thank you, ytti.
So let's start with the basics. Does the following text allow the NCC to meet the needs of network operators today?
"A new AS number is only assigned when the network architecture
I would be more edxplicit and more flexible here, by adding e.g.
or project
has a need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS number."
Looking at SDN stuff and pilot projects or testbeds, or even trainings or workshops, I can see the need to interconnect such projects with the 'real' net and to use globally unique AS numbers.
I do understanf that "network architecture" can be interpreted as a rather wide and flexible term, but we should try to provide as good guidance as we can to support the evaluation of requests by the IPRAs.
Wilfried
There will be more policy text. But again, let's start with -- and agree on -- the basics.
Thanks! David
David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation