On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:24 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Pesonally, I believe we have a terminology problem more than anything > else. > > > > At this time, we should no longer be even considering “2-byte” ASNs. > > > > There are two classes of 4-byte ASNs. The idea of 2-byte ASNs should be > considered anachronistic. > > > > The classes of 4-byte ASNs are those that are ≤65535 and those that are > ≥65536. > > > > The former class can be used as a 2-byte ASN in the rare case of a > technological limitation (obsolete routing equipment or equipment with > inadequate support for extended communities). > > > > The latter class cannot be used as a 2-byte ASN in such cases. > > > > In all cases, continuing to talk about 2-byte ASNs IMHO contributes to > the misperception that the internet has not yet moved on. > > > > I believe that current policy is sufficient. I would prefer that > operational practice actually revert to what is in policy and that we no > longer treat 4-byte ASNs ≤65535 as being in any way special. > > Since parties coming to ARIN are distinguishing between these classes of > 4-byte ASNs > and come back explicitly asking for one ≤65535, are you suggesting that > ARIN not hold > these lower ones to be able to satisfy such requests? > I would vehemently oppose such a punitive and pointless change. If an applicant has no reason to prefer a low-numbered ASN, they should get a 6-digit one by default. -Scott
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
