> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:24 , 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?
Yes. I believe that we, more than any other region, have been lazy in our adoption of current internet technologies to the detriment of the internet at large. I believe that continuing to facilitate this is not providing a useful service to the internet as a whole. Owen
_______________________________________________ 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.
