Sanjeev, See criterion #3 at https://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/02/2-byte-asn-run-out/ for a brief explanation of why 2-byte ASNs are still preferred for IXP peering.
Scott > On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
