[arin-ppml] Petition for advancement of Policy Proposal #168

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Current policy provides for requestors to get a 16 bit AS number until we run out of them.
>> 
>> At that point, no amount of policy will change the fact that we are out of 16 bit AS numbers.
> 
> No we are not. ARIN has stated that they are actually at steady state with in and out of 16bit.
> 

I don't recall them saying that, but, if that is the case, we will have 16 bit AS numbers for as long that remains the case and there is no problem.

> I want ARIN to assign 32bit by default so that 16bit supply is more assured.

Your policy proposal doesn't actually do that. Instead, it provides for people to ask for vanity ASNs in the full number space.

>> You'll need to explain how it does that. As near as I could tell, if you had a affinity for any number, 16 or 32 bit, you could request it if it was available and there was nothing specific about 32-bit ASNs in the proposal to justify the above claim.
> 
> Nobody has any affinity for any number larger then 65536?

I don't know. I bet more people have affinities for numbers <65,536 than >65,536, however, so if that is your best argument for how this policy would encourage 32-bit adoption, I have to say I think it would have the opposite effect.

>>> Further, the proposal gives ARIN eyes, ears and a voice into the inner workings of why people want the numbers they do and dont want the numbers they dont.
>> How do you figure that? It doesn't require anyone to provide that information to ARIN in the process of justifying their request.
> 
> "
> 
> 5.2.2 Requests
> 
> An organization may request from ARIN either a specific AS Number or
> type of AS Number, if available to ARIN. The organization must document
> to ARIN's satisfaction technical or real world justification for its
> request. ARIN may review the data directly with all involved parties.
> "

I (and I suspect ARIN staff) would interpret that to mean justifying the ASN, not the reason one was seeking the specific ASN or specific type of ASN.

Further, since you're allowing, essentially, vanity ASNs, I suspect a lot of the real-world reasons for wanting a particular ASN would be "we like it and it's what we want" or something roughly equivalent even if ARIN were to interpret the above language in that context.

>>> This is something ARIN does not have now.
>> Nor is it actually part of the proposed policy from what I read.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> I would hate to think that the AC abandoned a proposal without reading it.

Rest assured, I read it thoroughly and completely and did so more than once. As I stated above, I do not believe that it says or does what you appear to think it will do.

Owen