[ppml] Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal
owen at delong.com
Tue Dec 13 05:41:36 EST 2005
1. I thought the policy was in plain English. Admittedly, the British
version of plain English often differs from what I grew up with,
but, I think it was passable for North American Plain English.
2. There is some convenience and human readability/error prevention
to be gained from 1204.29182:1234 vs. your proposed 78934526:1234.
I think that 1204:29182:1234 would be bad, and, the policy author
has agreed and stated that he will change his recommendation to
dot (period for those of you on the other side of the pond) instead
3. I am not sure that sequential ASN allocation is worth while. I do
think it makes sense for ICANN to allocate blocks of ASNs to RIRs
as is currently done, and, that prevents perfect sequentiality, so,
I'm not sure that within a block sequential allocation from RIRs
actually matters. I suspect that ICANN will issue a single
16 bit ASN prefix to each RIR to start, but, perhaps there will be
some reason ICANN wants to issue smaller or larger chunks of ASNs.
--On December 13, 2005 10:33:51 AM +0000 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>> Your point about syntactical confusion with AS number communities is
>> What about a dot as the nibble separator within the AS number then?
> Is there something wrong with using 78934526:1234 to refer to
> community 1234 in AS number 78934526?
> Is it worthwhile specifying that AS numbers should be allocated
> sequentially rather than randomly from the 4 byte numberspace?
> --Michael Dillon
> P.S. Would anyone have objections to rewriting that policy
> in plain English?
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML