On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Woodgate <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So I feel that: > - 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing checks > removed; > OK. I agree with the reasoning that ASNs are not scarce. But see below. > - Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be charged > as a disincentive for frivolous requests. > Any fees would be too high for small operators, and trivially low for someone with a /15 > - Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per > account; > > - Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per > account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per AS > per year. > One ASN free for each /24 allocated? This means we will at worst "over-allocate" 0.4% of all ASN space > - Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs I do not understand this. Why are 2byte ASNs special? Is there new equipment being deployed that needs 2-byte ASNs? Is this a prestige thing? (Serious question): Why would an operator prefer a 2byte over a 4byte? I do not type in my ASN very often. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
