[ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs

[Robert Seastrom]

> On Mar 31, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
> 
> I won't pass value judgement on the design of these schemes, they are
> what they are. I want to stipulate that in my opinion the "community
> thing" is not a "red herring", but that there is a tangible difference
> between 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs in today's BGP landscape.

There's also the business decision to stick with older hardware.  There are plenty of reasons to not do this (software vulns, trading capex for opex in a way that's likely to annoy the @$#^@ out of one's technical staff being chief among them from my perspective).  Being on a waiting list may be one more nail in that coffin.

> I think the waiting list idea is worth considering.

I think the idea of having a way to get a 16-bit ASN if the totality of one's business needs require one is worth considering.

Indeed, we already have such a method: the introduction to the NRPM, Section 8.3 reads "In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources and ASNs may be transferred according to the following conditions...".  I would be curious to hear from ARIN staff how many ASNs have been transfered under 8.3 to date.

Our experience with the IPv4 number resource waiting list is that it has grown to the point where it is unlikely to deliver results for its members within a conceivable business planning cycle, while burdening ARIN with maintaining and fairly administering the list.

What problem are we solving by establishing a similar waiting list for 16 bit ASNs rather than directing organizations who require one to the transfer market?  Whether I'm in favor or opposed largely hinges on the answer to that question.

cheers,

-r