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

[Geoff Huston]

You raised a interesting question here "Does this need to be a Global Policy?"

My answer is: No I do not see any grounds for this.

The rationale is that the IANA action to create the 4 byte AS number 
registry is part of the IETF 4Byte AS number draft, so there is no need for 
the RIRs to also direct IANA to do the same thing. Now it is true that in 
order to implement this policy the RIRs will need to request 4-byte AS 
number blocks from IANA, but again I see no need for this to be part of a 
global policy.

So while I have submitted the same policy proposal to all 5 RIR policy 
development processes, there is no need for the adoption of this policy to 
be contingent on the actions of any other RIR - each RIR can proceed 
according to its own policy process here.


thanks,

      Geoff






At 06:56 AM 14/12/2005, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Geoff Huston
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:01 PM
> > To: Daniel Roesen; ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] ":" - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS
> > Number Policy Proposal
> >
> > At 09:45 PM 13/12/2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> > >On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 04:35:05PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> > > > The syntax "a:b" does not appear in that document.  Is it defined
> > > > elsewhere?  The use of the ":" as separator bothers me as that is
> > > > used in IPv6 address notation.
> > >
> > >And in community syntax, for both standard communities and extended
> > >communities (which become very very ugly with this notation).
> > >
> > >But you are right, probably not the place to discuss that, although
> > >this document text would set a precedence.
> >
> > I will revise the proposal with a '.' rather than a ':' delimiter.
> >
> > >A question to Geoff: why will issueing of 4-byte ASNs start only at
> > >2007-01-01, not earlier? To give RIRs two(!) years time to prepare
> > >themselves from 32bit ASN?
> >
> > 1 January 2007 is some 12 1/2 months away. Given that, it
> > will take some
> > months of elapsed time for:
> >
> > - the policy proposal to make it through the RIR and get
> > adopted as RIR policy
>
>Assume an April [1] meeting with universal support.  The AC recommends
>it for last call, ten working days.  Now it's mid-May, and the AC
>meets again and decides that there's been nothing but support in
>last call, and forwards to the Board.  The Board agrees, and
>ratifies the policy.  It's probably June by now, six months from
>the date of the proposal.
>
> > - the IANA action to actually create the expanded registry (a
> > small task in
> > and of itself, but it often takes some time to get to the top
> > of the IANA work list)
> >
> > - the IANA action to allocate 5 blocks to the RIRs from the
> > 4-byte only AS Number pool
>
>Does this need to be a Global Policy?
>
>
> > - The RIR to check that there are no 16 bit restrictions in
> > the code base they are using in their registry code.
>
>Existing data fields will have to be changed.  Code changes and
>template changes are required.  This may be significant; I'm sure
>staff will advise at the public policy meeting.
>
>
> > Doubtless each of these tasks is minor in nature, but it's
> > prudent to allow
> > a 12 month period in order to ensure that all this can be
> > done without having to rush it through.
>
>I agree, and appreciate your work on this.
>
>Lee
>
>
> >    Geoff
>
>[1] April 9-12, 2006, Montreal, Quebec.  Assume there's a plug for
>Member Services here.