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 < [email protected]> 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
