[ppml] Re: ASN-based prefixes for leaf ASes

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org>
> I agree and invite input from ARIN members.  NOTE: Please include in your
> comments whether you're a leaf or non-leaf AS.

I forgot that PPML wasn't copied on the original message...  To clarify:

My proposal was that automatic /48 allocations be made to anyone with an
ASN, based on the premise that every AS will advertise at least one PI
block.

These allocations would not allow sub-assignment (i.e. by non-leaf ASes).
Non-leaf ASes might use their ASN-based allocation for internal use, or
might ignore the ASN-based allocation in favor of "normal" TLA allocations
to minimize the number of advertised prefixes; the ASN-based allocation
should not count against non-leaf ASes for measuring utilization of "normal"
TLA allocations.  Leaf ASes would not be granted "normal" TLA allocations
without either evidence their ASN-based prefix was substantially consumed or
reasonable technical justification for multiple prefixes, e.g. for varying
BGP policies.

Some may note this is somewhat similar to 3ffe:: allocations to 6bone sites,
which were deprecated once RIR-based IPv6 allocations were standardized.
The major difference is that I propose it mainly apply to leaf ASes.  IMHO,
ASN-based allocations still make sense for leaf ASes, and forcing leaf ASes
through the RIR process for initial allocations is suboptimal if one accepts
the premise that every AS will advertise at least one PI prefix.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin