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 ASsI 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.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy