On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Woodgate <dwoodgate5@gmail.com> wrote:

So I feel that:
- 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing checks removed;

OK. I agree with the reasoning that ASNs are not scarce. But see below.

- Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be charged as a disincentive for frivolous requests.

Any fees would be too high for small operators, and trivially low for someone with a /15

- Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per account;

- Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per AS per year.

One ASN free for each /24 allocated? This means we will at worst "over-allocate" 0.4% of all ASN space

- Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs

I do not understand this. Why are 2byte ASNs special? Is there new equipment being deployed that needs 2-byte ASNs? Is this a prestige thing?

(Serious question): Why would an operator prefer a 2byte over a 4byte? I do not type in my ASN very often.

--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane