On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:01:44PM -0800, Chris Woodfield wrote: > > The thread that precipitated this proposal is here: > > > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2017-December/032112.html > > <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2017-December/032112.html> > > > > The main motivator appears to be differences in supply/demand ratios > > for 16-bit ASNs in different regions. I agree that the problem > > statement should capture this need. > > There is also the matter of consistency: when an organisation ends up > moving a portion or all of their resources to another RIR, it would be > strange if the ASNs have to be left behind. Renumbering ASNs can be a > very expensive and involved process, so simply 'requesting a new one' in > the other region may not be feasible. >
Personally I'd rather not go down the "ASNs that can be represented as a 16-bit integer" rabbit hole again. I think the better problem statement here is Job's one here. Maybe add something like this to the problem statement in the proposal? "When an organisation ends up moving a portion or all of their IPv4 resources to another RIR, it is often most efficient to transfer the ASN used with them. Renumbering ASNs can be a very expensive and involved process, so simply 'requesting a new one' in the other region may not be feasible." -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.
