[ppml] Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal

[Owen DeLong]

Why do we need additional private asns instead of just 0:64512-0:65534?

Owen


--On December 12, 2005 5:36:20 PM -0500 Rich Emmings <rich at nic.umass.edu> 
wrote:

> A possible addition is for space to be left aside in the proposal for
> private 4 byte AS numbers, perhaps:
>
>   1) in the same range as the 2 byte range, i.e. 64512 - 65534:x or
>   2) in each range (x:64512 - 65534)
>
> Notes: a) not sure the status of AS23456 with regard to this, if any.
>         b) administrative ease is addressed here by using the same range,
> at the possible expense of "c"         c) efficiency of allocation is not
> -- could be with a small range at the top, at the expense of "b"
>
> In addition, documention-only ASN's may be of use, ala the IPv4 addresses
> in  RFC3330.  While the private range can be used, in BGP documentation,
> as with  others, it's harder to determine 'public' from 'private' when
> only private  space is used.
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Member Services wrote:
>>
>> [deleted]
>> ### * ###
>>
>> Policy Proposal Name:
>>
>>         4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal
>>
>> Author: Geoff Huston
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml



-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20051212/cf1aee07/attachment.sig>