And I’d point to the evidence of a transfer market specifically for 16-bit ASNs as good evidence of this.
That said, I’d like to understand better the relative imbalance of supply and demand for these resources in the various RIR regions before I form a conclusion as to whether that imbalance justifies a policy change to resolve. -C > On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:27:55AM -0800, Chris Woodfield wrote: >> RFC8092 was published roughly a year ago. I can’t imagine that we’ll >> see universal support for it anytime soon, and there’s plenty of gear >> out there on the internet today that won’t be getting a software >> update to support it. > > It'll be end of 2018 for general available software on the majority of > platforms - and for a company like NTT, a deployment of configurations > that use large community are likely to be in 2019 or maybe even 2020. > I don't intend this statement as a roadmap announcement, but rather to > illustrate the timescale. > > I'm tracking large community support here: > http://largebgpcommunities.net/implementations/ > >> I have encountered exactly this scenario, albeit on a private network, >> but I can’t imagine this not being a real-world issue for multiple >> operators with public 32-bit ASNs. > > yes, there are real-world issues for 32-bit ASN users today related to > communities. If I'd have to do a greenfield deployment of a new transit > network today, using a 16-bit ASN would be a blocking requirement due to > BGP communities. I imagine that for a number of years to come 16-bit > ASNs will be more desirable than 32-bit ASNs. > > Kind regards, > > Job > _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
