[ppml]How far is too far?

[Owen DeLong]

We should.  However, until we have a successful ASN reclamation process
underway, making policy based on the assumption that we can reclaim
ASNs is probably not the best plan.

Since the requirement already exists for end user assignments that the
end user be multihomed or have a unique routing policy, I think the ASN
requirement on this policy would be harmful.  Afterall, if the end user
meets those requirements, they can apply for and get an ASN.  Making them
do so only serves to accelerate ASN exhaustion.

As to ISPs, I believe ISPs which are seeking to do this also need to
be multihomed as part of their justification.  As such, they're probably
already in posession of an ASN, so, virtually no effect there, either.

Owen


--On Saturday, October 4, 2003 10:06 AM -0400 "McBurnett, Jim" 
<jmcburnett at msmgmt.com> wrote:

>> You need to be careful here.  AS numbers are actually a more limited
>> resource than IPv4 addresses!  While I haven't looked at the
>> ARIN graphs
>> recently, a couple years ago ASN exhaustion was the most immediate
>> threat, although plans were being discussed to extend it....
>> --
>
> Please forgive my ignorance here.
> But after the dot-bomb shouldn't a large number of ASN's
> now be unused?  and not just that, what about the
> mergers? uunet alternet worldcom etc...
> When looking at the netatlantis.org site, I seem to
> see large gaps..
>
> Should we not be considering ASN reclamation?
>
> just a thought...
>
>
> Jim